Can the U.S. ever make aggressive carbon cuts to rival Europe’s?

With a rocket launcher strapped to his back, President Ronald Reagan rode fearlessly upon a long-extinct Velociraptor while brandishing a machine gun: This is the imagery — presented on poster board and carried to the floor of the Senate Chamber on March 26 — that Republican Senator Mike Lee used to mock the Green New Deal, a proposal to rapidly transform the U.S. energy infrastructure and slash the nation’s ample emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Green New Deal, argued Lee, is not a serious solution to combatting climate change — presumably as unserious as a dinosaur gimmick in the Senate. Instead, he contended (this time seriously) that the climate solution America needs is to produce significantly more babies. Yes, the predestined ingenuity from these babies will fix the global problem, Lee concluded. Unsurprisingly, the Senate voted no on whether to debate the Green New Deal.

So with a still-emerging Green New Deal stalled in the Senate — and nearly two decades after the U.S. released its first congressionally-mandated climate report — the U.S. still has no long-term, coherent climate plans.

Meanwhile, across the pond, Europe is on track to slash its carbon emissions by 2030 to around 50 percent of 1990 levels: Already, the European Union has made binding pledges to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 — though a new analysis by the UK climate policy group Sandbag shows the European nation states can get to 50 percent by then — or higher.

This matters. Earth’s climatic future will be heavily shaped by the four big players, or carbon emitters — the U.S., EU, India, and China. Of these, the U.S. and EU are obviously similar in that they’re a foundational part of the wealthy and long-industrialized Western world. But when it comes to slashing heat-trapping carbon emissions — which are now at their highest levels in some 15 million years — these two powerful unions are barreling down starkly different highways.

“It’s purely a matter of political will. We don’t have any, at least, on the federal level.”

While the EU spies a carbon-free future, President Trump has vowed to pull the U.S. from its biggest climate pledge, made back in 2015, to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025. Accordingly, the outlook for Uncle Sam’s ability to slash carbon emissions and help avoid the worst of future climate scenarios might look grim — especially on the heels of 2018 in which U.S. emissions shot up. Even so, the U.S. could still catch up (or nearly catch up) with the ambitious EU, though the Europeans have a growing head start. After all, it’s not science, inventiveness, or technology that’s holding the U.S. back. It’s politics.

“We can achieve those cuts,” said John Quigley, the director of the Center for Environment, Energy and Economy at Harrisburg University. “It’s purely a matter of political will. We don’t have any, at least, on the federal level.”

Indeed, it’s challenging to get hundreds of heavily-lobbied Congress members who represent the interests of millions to agree on weighty climate policy. But it wasn’t easy in Europe’s parliament, either.

“This has been politically contentious,” said Andreas Graf, an energy policy analyst at the European think tank Agora Energiewende. “It’s not like it was easy to get to those numbers. If it was easy, we would have even higher numbers.”

So how did Europe do it — and by extension — how can the U.S.? It comes down to quitting coal and accepting the economic inevitability that the future is, largely, renewable.

Quitting an old habit

Europe’s biggest chunk of carbon reductions has come from cuts or planned cuts to coal-burning power plants.

“It’s all about coal,” said Phil MacDonald, an analyst at Sandbag.

“It’s all about coal.”

“Coal is a dirty fuel that has an immediate effect on overall emissions,” added MacDonald. Though, just like states in the U.S., not all EU member nations have weaned themselves off the fossil fuel (for example coal-happy Poland). But the UK has slashed coal rapidly, and that’s made a dent. In 2012, 40 percent of the UK’s power came from coal, but today, that’s down to five percent, explained MacDonald.

It’s easy to see why. In a capitalist society, money talks.

“We’re reaching this tipping point where renewables become cheaper to build than just the running cost of the coal and gas plants,” said MacDonald.

Something similar is now happening across the Atlantic, in the U.S. A new report by energy analysts Energy Innovation found that “wind and solar could replace approximately 74 percent of the U.S. coal fleet at an immediate savings to customers.” Already, the indifferent, free-hand of capitalism has signaled coal’s gradual demise in America. In 2018, coal use dropped to its lowest levels in 40 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In 2019, even lobbying from coal-proponent President Donald Trump failed to keep a coal plant open.

“It’s the market making its voice known,” said Ahmed Abdulla, an energy expert at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy. If the black fossil fuel were a smart economic choice, coal plants would thrive in today’s political climate, wherein a former coal lobbyist now heads the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “They would be building them left and right.”

But where the U.S. falls short is how quickly renewables can ramp up. Wind and solar are plummeting in price, emphasized Quigely, but it could take decades to replace coal’s infrastructure, built over the 20th century. “The problem is we’re starting from a small scale,” said Quigley, noting the need to construct new, massive power lines across the vast Lower 48. This means the federal government would likely need to step in to stimulate the transition — similar to the New Deal energy mobilization that electrified The South. “The challenge is enormous given the pace and scale of what has to happen,” said Quigley.

Meanwhile, Earth’s climate clock is ticking as historically unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide load the atmosphere.

A collective spirit

Today, Europe has a benefit the U.S. lacks: a genuine desire among a majority of its member states and political leaders to slash emissions.

“There is collective ambition,” said Graf.

Though some point out that it’s still not nearly enough to meet the necessary climate targets set by the historic Paris climate accords. The wheels are turning though, said Graf. In the last five years the EU was able “to punch up the member states on ambition” from their original 2014 targets. Achieving just 40 percent carbon reductions by 2030 is an outdated desire. There are now bigger goals — though not yet binding pledges — on the horizon. “55 percent is the new number out there,” said Graf.

Europe’s collective ambitions have been boosted by another reality. Globally-agreed upon climate science is generally not up for debate in Europe, which is in stark contrast to the U.S. where the EPA itself accused top climate scientists of writing an intentionally misleading climate report.

Current #Arctic sea ice extent (orange) is not anywhere close to average…

Compared to previous decades:

• about 700,000 km² less the 2000s mean

• about 1,120,000 km² less the 1990s mean

• about 1,160,000 km² less the 1980s mean pic.twitter.com/R368YXNFpI

— Zack Labe (@ZLabe) March 27, 2019

“There’s support across the board,” said Wendel Trio, Director of the Climate Action Network Europe in Belgium, an organization that promotes sustainable climate policy in Europe. “The climate science is agreed.”

“We have support for climate action — including from the conservatives,” added MacDonald, referencing the political climate in the UK.

“We have support for climate action — including from the conservatives.”

What’s more, the European public largely supports government efforts to decarbonize. When polled, “climate change always comes out as one of the top issues for ordinary citizens across Europe,” said Trio. Today, some 85 percent of Europeans “agree that fighting climate change and using energy more efficiently can create economic growth and jobs in Europe,” according to the EU.

The needle in the U.S., however, is moving. Influenced in part by the uptick in extreme weather, more and more Americans find climate science convincing. And overall, seven of 10 Americans say climate change is, at least, happening.

The end game

Europe’s end game, written in no uncertain terms, is to become a carbon-neutral region by 2050, meaning it’s no longer adding to the planet’s carbon burden.

But on the road there, the ambitious 2030 goals of cutting carbon emissions by well over 40 percent of 1990 levels almost certainly must be realized. Trio is optimistic. “Europe hasn’t missed a target yet,” he said. And getting to near 50 percent reductions can happen if nations boost energy efficiency (like in buildings) and deploy more renewables (like offshore wind farms powered by vigorous winds). “It’s going to be a challenge, but I’m pretty sure we can do it,” said Trio.

But the greater story is that the U.S. — along with burgeoning economic powerhouses India and China — will need to meet Europe’s ambition to stave off increasingly extreme consequences of a warming planet. It’s no secret nations globally are behind the curve.

“We’re all way behind where we need to be,” said UCSD’s Abdulla.

Last month’s global average concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) was about 411 parts per million (ppm), up about 4 ppm from February 2018.https://t.co/qjYgQZI1Al

— NASA Climate (@NASAClimate) March 20, 2019

“There are no technological or economic or social reasons why the U.S. cannot transition to a far more decarbonized energy system over the next few decades.”

And after 2030, the work to decarbonize will only get more difficult. Europe’s 2030 targets largely rely on the sunset of coal. “The problem is that coal is the low hanging fruit,” said MacDonald. What’s next are the challenges of slashing carbon emissions in agriculture (think methane-belching cattle), industry (like making concrete, which accounts for a whopping eight percent of global carbon emissions), and heavily-polluting airliners — all areas that have shown little to no declines so far, noted MacDonald.

Europe will be helped along by an increasingly important tool the U.S. doesn’t have: The EU has put a price on carbon. Though the system covers less than half of the EU’s greenhouse gases, the Emissions Trading System puts a cap on the total emissions allowed by certain sectors (like power plants). European companies buy “emission allowances” — and because they’re limited (like rare metals or money) — they can go up in price, making carbon emissions more expensive. It’s a valuable tool, said Trio.

The U.S., on the other hand, does not have any realistic plans to put a price on carbon.

**Bar Chart Race for CO2**

The changing ranks of the 10 largest CO2 emitters in the world since 1850.

Fascinating to see nations rise, fall & rise again in their yearly emissions*

See how the UK dominates the C19th & US the 20th.

Then watch China surge ahead after 2005… pic.twitter.com/mFLuHB8kTw

— Simon Evans (@DrSimEvans) March 21, 2019

Even so, will the U.S. follow Europe’s 2030, and ultimately 2050, path, perhaps guided by political leadership that doesn’t mock new, still-emerging ideas of how to cut carbon emissions?

“There are no technological or economic or social reasons why the U.S. cannot transition to a far more decarbonized energy system over the next few decades,” said Abdulla.

That will almost certainly require something approaching the EU’s collective ambition and an acceptance of deeply-vetted, globally understood climate science — something that doesn’t presently exist in U.S. Congress. Though bizarre gimmicks on the Senate floor are alive and well.

“It’s a political system that has decided to break itself at the seams,” said Abdulla.

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2WIG46q
via IFTTT

Palestinian man killed by settler after alleged stabbing attack

An Israeli settler shot and killed a Palestinian man on Wednesday after an alleged stabbing attack near the occupied West Bank city of Nablus, according to the Israeli army.

Medical sources said the Palestinian, identified as Mohammad Abdul-Fattah, a resident from the northern West Bank district of Salfit, was in critical condition. He was taken to an Israeli hospital east of Tel Aviv, where he was pronounced dead, according to Maan news agency.

A Nablus hospital said another Palestinian, 22-year-old Khaled Rawajbeh, was moderately wounded in Wednesday’s shooting, which took place near a checkpoint.

There were conflicting accounts from witnesses as to how the second Palestinian was wounded. One account attributed it to “occupation forces” while Maan reported it was stray fire from the first shooting.

No Israelis were wounded.

Witnesses refuted the Israeli military’s statement and denied a stabbing attempt had taken place, local media reported.

According to Maan, Abdul-Fattah, a truck driver, had left his vehicle after the settler blocked the road with his car. The settler prevented him from driving on despite holding an Israeli license plate, and shortly after he opened fire towards the two Palestinian men.

Israeli media identified the settler as Joshua Sherman from the illegal settlement of Elon Moreh east of Nablus.

Israeli forces kill three Palestinians in West Bank

Sherman told local media the Palestinian “jumped on the car with a knife and tried to open the door.”

Elon Moreh is home to nearly 2,000 Jewish settlers who live among several other illegal outposts and settlements that form a ring around Nablus, heavily restricting Palestinian movement in the area, according to Israeli rights group B’Tselem.

Settlements are considered illegal under international law and are a major sticking point for peace efforts between Israel and Palestinian leaders.

In January, a Israeli settlers shot and killed Hamdi Naasan, a 38-year-old Palestinian, when they attacked the Palestinian village of al-Mugheir in the West Bank.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the average number of violent incidents instigated by settlers every month increased by 57 percent in 2018 compared with 2017, and by 175 percent compared with 2016.

Since 2015, Israeli forces have killed over 260 Palestinians, while Palestinians have killed over 50 Israelis in West Bank in sporadic attacks during the same period.

Palestinians say the attacks stem from anger over decades of Israeli occupation in territory they claim for their state. Israel blames the violence on incitement by Palestinian political and religious leaders.

A number of local and international human rights groups have raised concerns that Israeli forces have used excessive force when confronting Palestinians who had carried out attacks or been suspected of doing so.

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2HVTTLG
via IFTTT

Democrats race to embrace legal weed

A marijuana plant — While legalizing pot may not rank among the top five issues important to voters, it could prove crucial as Democrats winnow the field. | Don Mackinnon/AFP/Getty Images

2020 elections

The near-universal backing of cannabis legalization is a stark contrast to recent presidential campaigns.

Democratic presidential candidates have come a long way from “I didn’t inhale.”

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has boasted that his state, one of the first to legalize recreational marijuana use in 2012, has “the best weed in the United States of America.” Sen. Bernie Sanders has been proposing some form of legalization for more than two decades. Sen. Kamala Harris has reminisced about lighting up in college. And Sen. Cory Booker makes overhauling drug laws a linchpin of his stump speeches. Nearly every Democrat in the field has embraced some form of legalization.

Story Continued Below

The near-universal backing is a stark contrast to recent presidential campaigns, when legalization was a fringe issue that seldom surfaced on the trail or during debates. And while legalizing pot may not rank among the top five issues important to voters, it could prove crucial as Democrats winnow the field.

“In these early stages where you’re at 18 [candidates] and you’re trying to get a little bit of an edge over the rest … maybe this is the differentiator,” said Joe Trippi, a veteran Democratic strategist who’s worked on numerous presidential campaigns.

The change is driven by the rapid spread of legal cannabis markets. Ten states and the District of Columbia have full legalization, and another 23 states permit medicinal uses with permission from a doctor, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Even deep-red states like Arkansas and Utah have recently enacted medical marijuana laws. Sales topped $8 billion last year and could hit $80 billion by 2030, according to Cowen Equity Research.

More than half of the declared field earned an “A” rating from cannabis advocacy group NORML, which promotes recreational use, not just medical use.

“I don’t see a path for how a Democrat running for president could win the presidential primary unless they do have a positive cannabis position,” said Neil Levine, CEO of the Cannabis Trade Federation, an industry-backed advocacy group.

Meanwhile, arguably the biggest weed legalization skeptics — former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who earlier this year called it “perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done”) and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (NORML gives him a “C”) — have taken a pass on the 2020 presidential contest. Another outlier, former Vice President Joe Biden, who has a long track record of supporting tough drug laws, hasn’t joined the field.

The issue also is gaining traction in an otherwise largely gridlocked Congress. Last week, the House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly passed legislation that would let banks provide services to legal marijuana businesses, with 11 Republicans joining all committee Democrats in supporting the bill. Because marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, the pot business is now largely cash only.

Congress also used last year’s farm bill to legalize hemp — a non-psychoactive variety of the cannabis plant. And it passed a significant overhaul of criminal justice policies aimed at enhancing opportunities for ex-drug offenders that was strongly backed by the Trump administration.

Marijuana advocates are looking for ways to sustain the momentum, expecting the issue to fade as candidates spend more time on health care, immigration and other high-profile issues.

Don Murphy, the Marijuana Policy Project’s director of federal policies, is having second thoughts about plans to staff a booth at the Iowa State Fair in August while candidates work the crowd, because the field has so enthusiastically embraced legalization.

But Murphy and other advocates are still waiting for candidates to offer fleshed-out platforms, rather than just rhetorical gestures.

“There’s trash talking before the fight — and then there’s the fight,” Murphy said. “I’d be happier with their rhetoric if I saw some real fight in the ring.”

Anti-legalization forces are hoping to use the Democratic candidates’ positions to paint them as out of touch with most of the country and pushing a marginal issue to enable a multi-billion-dollar industry that peddles a product with significant health risks.

“This is a very low priority issue for voters, period,” said Kevin Sabet, CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization. “The average voter — this is not on the radar.”

But public opinion has steadily shifted in favor of legalization. More than 6 in 10 adults now favor legalization, according to the Pew Research Center — double the level of support at the turn of the century.

The cannabis industry remains a minor but burgeoning political player. Industry groups spent $2.7 million on lobbying last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than six-fold increase over just two years earlier.

The collective embrace of cannabis means that the debate in the Democratic primary is shifting beyond whether legal pot sales should be permitted. Several candidates are already calling for past marijuana-related convictions to be expunged. Inslee has vowed to grant pardons to thousands of Washington residents convicted of misdemeanor marijuana offenses prior to the state’s pioneering embrace of legalization.

Some candidates are also bringing a social justice component to the discussion, proposing that communities hit hard by past marijuana possession convictions — particularly among minorities — reap the benefits from newly legalized markets. Recent efforts to pass legalization bills in New York and New Jersey hit obstacles in part over concerns they didn’t do enough to address past harms.

“It’s not enough to just support marijuana reform. That’s a given.” said Queen Adesuyi, policy coordinator for the Drug Policy Action, which advocates for overhauling drug laws. “We’ve gotten past that point. The country is in a different place. Congress is in a different place now.”

Booker has been among the most ardent champions of legalization, sponsoring the Marijuana Justice Act, which would not only eliminate criminal penalties nationwide for possessing or consuming pot but also wipe out past criminal convictions and take steps to redress the disproportionate arrests of minorities during the decades-long War on Drugs. First-time offenders convicted of misdemeanor pot possession can face up to a year in prison and a fine of $1,000.

“We have a lot of injustice in our criminal justice system being borne by the poor, disproportionately minorities,” Booker said during a town hall meeting hosted by CNN last week. “If I am your president, I’m going to fight to have sane drug laws.”

Four of Booker’s Senate colleagues — Sanders, Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand — who are running for president are co-sponsors of the Marijuana Justice Act. The one exception: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who has sponsored legislation that would allow states to make their own choices about legalization without fear of federal punishment.

It’s still unclear how much all the positioning will influence voters. Political observers say likely voters are influenced more by bread-and-butter issues like health care and tax policy.

But Trippi pointed out that in a wide-open primary field, even a few percentage points could make the crucial difference in whether a candidate finishes a respectable second or a distant eighth in early voting states. The issue could have particular resonance with young voters: 3 out of 4 millennials support legalization, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Cannabis is a real thing now,” said Carl Olsen, a Democratic activist in Des Moines, Iowa, noting that even President Donald Trump has suggested he’s open to some form of legalization. “The whole thing shifts now into not whether we do it, but how we do it.”

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2WIG1rg
via IFTTT

Turkey election board: Eight Istanbul districts to recount votes

Turkey‘s High Election Board (YSK) will recount local election votes in eight districts of Istanbul following objections, YSK head Sadi Guven said on Wednesday after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan‘s Justice and Development Party (AK Party) appealed results across the city.

The main opposition, which had earned a narrow victory over the ruling AK Party according to initial results, had appealed the recount, prompting the YSK to halt them late on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters in Ankara, Guven said that the recount would mostly focus on invalid votes, adding that this was not an unprecedented decision.

Appeals to the YSK were still ongoing, he said.

Initial results published by state-run Anadolu Agency on Monday showed that the ruling AK Party lost the mayoral elections in the country’s three largest cities – Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir – in a stunning election setback for Erdogan.

The country’s election board gave the parties three days to file their complaints, setting the deadline for Wednesday.

Anadolu’s unofficial data showed Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) candidate Ekrem Imamoglu had won the heated mayoral race in Istanbul, the country’s largest city and economic centre, with 48.8 percent of the vote, while the AK Party candidate Binali Yildirim got 48.5 percent.

In the capital, Ankara, unofficial results showed that CHP candidate Mansur Yavas had garnered 50.9 percent, with the AK Party nominee Mehmet Ozhaseki trailing with 47.2 percent.

In the third-largest city, Izmir, the CHP candidate, Mustafa Tunc Soyer, was leading with 58 percent votes while AK Party’s Nihat Zeybekci stood at 38.5 percent.

Economic downturn

Sunday’s local elections were held against the backdrop of Turkey’s first recession in a decade while its lira currency lost as much as 40 percent of its value against the US dollar last year.

The race in Istanbul was particularly tight, with both AK Party and the CHP claiming victory in Istanbul’s mayoral election.

Yildirim claimed early on Monday that he had won the race by around 4,000 votes, but later admitted he was 25,000 votes behind Imamoglu from CHP, which is part of the Nation Alliance.

He, however, said that his party would object to the results over invalid votes.

“There are 31,136 ballot boxes [in Istanbul]. If there is one invalid vote in each ballot box, it makes 31,136 votes in total, which is more than the difference [between the two sides],” he said, adding that there are some 315,500 invalid votes in the polls.

Sezgin Tanrikulu, a CHP MP from Istanbul, said that although Imamoglu won the race in Istanbul, the election board was waiting for the objection period to end for legal reasons to declare the official winner.

“There have been complaints about certain ballot boxes. Legally, the party objecting should show a valid reason in doing so over each particular ballot box. Therefore, the number of boxes votes will be recounted in is limited,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The government should respect the results.”

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2HW0RA2
via IFTTT

Brunei enacts Sharia law as sultan calls for ‘stronger’ Islam

Brunei is enacting Sharia law, a new penal code that imposes death by stoning for adultery and gay sex, and amputations for theft, despite widespread criticism.

An absolute monarchy, ruled for 51 years by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, oil-rich Brunei first announced the new penal code in 2013, but full implementation has been delayed.

Bolkiah, 72, is the world’s second-longest reigning monarch and ranks as one of the world’s wealthiest people.

The new law mostly applies to Muslims, though some aspects will also apply to non-Muslims. It stipulates the death penalty for a number of offences, including rape, adultery, sodomy, robbery and insulting or defaming the Prophet Muhammad.

It also introduces public flogging as punishment for abortion as well as amputation for theft and criminalises exposing Muslim children to the beliefs and practices of any religion other than Islam.

The sultan first announced plans for the code in 2013.

The small Muslim-majority island had introduced penalties in stages, all of which come into force on Wednesday.

The laws will make Brunei the first country in East or Southeast Asia to have a Sharia penal code at the national level, joining several mostly Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia.

‘Barbaric to the core’

The decision to push ahead with the implementation of the laws come after a long line of politicians, rights groups and celebrities, including actor George Clooney and musician Elton John, condemned the new laws.

Clooney and John are among those calling for a boycott of hotels owned by the sultanate, which include the Beverly Hills Hotel, the Dorchester in London and the Plaza Athenee in Paris.

Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, said the code was “barbaric to the core, imposing archaic punishments for acts that shouldn’t even be crimes”.

Robertson also said there was “no place in the 21st century” for this kind of penal code.

Comprehensive @hrw release on #Brunei‘s new penal code, and horrific, medieval punishments for vulnerable women, children, #LGBT & others. No place in the 21st century for this kind of law! https://t.co/x0IMB9YQ8u pic.twitter.com/XsOprlXRYr

— Phil Robertson (@Reaproy) April 3, 2019

Governments have also weighed in with the United States saying the punishments run counter to Brunei’s “international human rights obligations”.

“The United States strongly opposes violence, criminalisation and discrimination targeting vulnerable groups,” said deputy State Department spokesman Roberto Palladino.

France and Australia also called on Brunei to renounce the measures, with both governments expressing concern.

#Brunei

We are very concerned by the entry in force of a new criminal code on April 3, which provides for corporal punishment and the death penalty for crimes including homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, and adultery.https://t.co/jO87CJj4ER pic.twitter.com/yuS2vc040Y

— France Diplomacy (@francediplo_EN) April 2, 2019

Australia has raised our concerns with the Brunei government on the introduction of the full Syariah Penal Code today. We absolutely oppose the death penalty & are committed to the rights of LGBTI people. We will continue to advocate for human rights in the region & beyond. @dfat

— Marise Payne (@MarisePayne) April 3, 2019

In a public address to mark a special date in the Islamic calendar, the sultan called for stronger Islamic teachings but did not mention the new penal code.

“I want to see Islamic teachings in this country grow stronger,” he said in the nationally televised speech at a convention centre near the capital Bandar Seri Begawan.

“I would like to emphasize that the country of Brunei is a… country that always devotes its worship to Allah.”

He said that he wanted the Muslim call to prayer to ring out in all public places, not just in mosques, to remind people of their Islamic duties.

The sultan, who has been on the throne for over five decades, also insisted that Brunei was a “fair and happy” country.

“Anyone who comes to visit this country will have a sweet experience, and enjoy the safe and harmonious environment,” he said.

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2YKC87i
via IFTTT

Prannoy Roy and Dorab Sopariwala decode India’s general election

Madurai, India – Indian journalist Prannoy Roy, cofounder of the NDTV group, and Dorab R. Sopariwala, its editorial adviser, have spent four decades studying Indian elections.

Their book, The Verdict: Decoding India’s Elections, published this year by Penguin Random House India, crunches data and qualitative studies to explain what makes democracy in India tick.

Weeks ahead of the general election, to be held in seven phases from April 11 to May 19, the authors tell Al Jazeera about the psyche of the Indian voter.

Al Jazeera: In your book, you divide independent India into three time periods, each defined by the voters’ state of mind. How has the Indian voter transitioned over the years?

Prannoy Roy: There are three basic phases through which an Indian voter evolved. In any fledgling democracy, in the years following independence, 80 percent of elected governments are voted back to power. We refer to this phase as pro-incumbency and the data shows that it lasts for about 25 years. It was a period that was full of hope. People respected their leaders for the heroism that they showed during the independence struggle.

Around 1977 however, the pro-incumbency period came to an end in India and this marked a turning point. Disillusionment over the lack of development in the first 25 years began to grow, and the voter turned angry.

Prannoy Roy, left, and Dorab R Sopariwala, right, have spent years analysing the intricacies of Indian elections [Courtesy: Roy and Sopariwala]

Dorab R Sopariwala: For the next 25 years, we saw the emergence of what we call the “angry voter”. Voters threw out more than 70 percent of governments during this anti-incumbency phase.

But by 2002, the Indian voter had become far more discerning – entering into what we call the fifty-fifty era. They threw out governments that did nothing for them and voted back those who focussed on bringing about change.

This was very different from the previous anti-incumbency era in which all governments in power were thrown out, regardless of whether they deserved to be in power or not. The fifty-fifty era motivated politicians to deliver.

Al Jazeera: How quickly were politicians able to adapt to these changes and how did this evolution contribute to India’s growth story?

Roy: It took a while for politicians to realise the changing needs of the Indian voter. Once they did understand that voters were becoming wiser, many of the politicians began to visit their constituencies regularly.

This is the most heartwarming factor of the Indian elections: the fact that women are now turning out in large numbers and that their vote is not influenced by family members.

Prannoy Roy, journalist and TV executive

The fact that politicians were now being forced by voters to provide results has been responsible for India’s rising gross domestic product and high annual growth rates, climbing steadily over the last 25 years.

Sopariwala: Voters were pushing for reforms, but they weren’t necessarily focussing on overall economic growth. It was micro-growth that mattered to them. This is growth at a personal level – in their day-to-day lives and in their neighbourhoods. They were living difficult lives, and here’s where they needed to see change the most. Issues like electricity, housing, good roads and access to water became key areas of interest.

Al Jazeera: In your book, you speak about the contradictions that exist between the rural and the urban voter…

Roy: It is true that there’s often a contradiction in the needs of the rural and urban voter. Many things that can benefit a farmer could possibly hurt the urban consumer. Take for instance the high price of food grains. This can drive a farmer’s income higher, but rising costs will affect the urban consumer. This is an issue we see all over the world. It is a factor that politicians and economists are forced to contend with, especially during election times. These contradictions can be managed with subsidies and greater support [for rural farmers].

Sopariwala: There are challenges here that are unique to India as well. We must consider the fact that in countries like America, only two percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture. In such a small population, you can afford to subsidise. In India, our agricultural population is very high. If you were to give such a huge subsidy, it would end up affecting the fiscal deficit. So in terms of getting their needs met, farmers do end up having a much more difficult time when compared to urban voters. That’s why you’ll find that they are often more discerning about who forms the government and what its policies are.

Al Jazeera: Who are elected representatives most likely to pay attention to?

Roy: I can tell you who they should be paying heed to and that’s the woman voter – particularly the rural woman voter. Already, in assembly elections [to choose the governments at a state level across India], we’re witnessing a startling transformation. Woman voters used to lag behind men by 20 percent in assembly elections in the 1960s. But in the last few elections, women’s turnout has exceeded [that of] the men.

In the national Lok Sabha elections, the female turnout is catching up to the male turnout. We’re expecting them to overtake the men in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. And for me, this is the most heartwarming factor of the Indian elections: the fact that women are now turning out in large numbers and that their vote is not influenced by family members. We’ve spoken to many rural women and our qualitative studies have proven that they clearly know their own minds.

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, centre, a leader of India’s main opposition Congress party and sister of the party president Rahul Gandhi, gestures as she speaks with women during an election campaign meeting in Ayodhya, India, March 29, 2019 [Pawan Kumar/Reuters]

Al Jazeera: Despite this high turnout, in your book you reveal that there are many Indian women voters missing from the electoral rolls.

Roy: India is currently missing 21 million women voters. We arrived at this estimate based on the numbers of women recorded in the last census and the numbers who are registered to vote. This is a conservative estimate. By our other estimates, it could be as high as 28 million women. Significantly, all the missing women voters are in North India. In South India, this isn’t a problem. We haven’t analysed why this is the case yet, and there needs to be more research into this, but it’s shocking that this adds up to over 30,000 women voters in every constituency in North India.

The worst affected state is Uttar Pradesh where there are 6.8 million women missing on its electoral roles – that averages a potentially game-changing 85,000 women voters in each constituency. We don’t have any evidence that this is deliberate voter suppression. We need to analyse how much this is due to systemic failure to register votes.

It’s also significant that the numbers of these missing women having been rising dramatically over the last 25 years. On an average, in the first 25 years, three million women were missing from the rolls. In the second phase (1997-2002), six million were missing, and in the third phase (2002-2014), there were 19 million women on average unregistered.

Sopariwala: This is an issue that just isn’t acceptable today, given the technology we have. The Election Commission of India needs to address this issue.

Most of these women are likely to belong to the most vulnerable sections of society – the poorest and the most disadvantaged communities.

Al Jazeera: What other changing trends became evident as you researched the book?

Roy: Regional parties (political parties that have a strong presence at a state government level in India) will play a larger role in these elections than ever before. Earlier, their presence at a national level was just five percent. This figure steadily rose to 35 percent in the last election and now we estimate it to be at 40 percent.

This is significant, because the issues that affect every state in India are different, and now these issues will have representation.

Sopariwala: There are only three large states in which the two major national political parties in India will face each other head-on as main contenders. In all the others, they will face stiff competition from regional parties.

Al Jazeera: Do coalitions between political parties gain importance in this scenario?

Sopariwala: Yes, and there is the trend in recent years where regional parties tend to unite to form a formidable opposition to the national parties.

When they face this kind of opposition, the vote share of national parties is bound to decrease.

Roy: In earlier years, a high number of seats, over 65 percent, were won only as a result of a popular vote. But now, many of these seats – nearly 50 percent – are won purely because of a united opposition. Many seats change hands because of these alliances. And we’ve seen that if your political presence is concentrated in one region, even you were a small party, it could translate this into a significant number of seats and presence in the Lok Sabha.

In this way, smaller parties are getting their due in terms of power at a national level.

This is purely an Indian innovation of the British electoral system – we call it the Jugaar-First-Past-the-Post system: pure Indian ingenuity. It tends to work better for a bigger country, and makes the process much fairer.

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2YTTte2
via IFTTT

Highlights: Russell Westbrook Erupts for 20-20-20 Triple-Double vs. Lakers

Devin Booker Makes History with Scoring Tear
29 Years Ago, Jordan Dropped Career-High 69 Points
Bosh Is Getting His Jersey Raised to the Rafters in Miami
Steph Returns to Houston for 1st Time Since His Moon Landing Troll
Lou Williams Is Coming for a Repeat of Sixth Man of the Year
Pat Beverley Has the Clippers Stealing the LA Shine
LeBron Keeps Shredding NBA Record Books
Young’s Hot Streak Is Heating Up the ROY Race with Luka
LeBron and 2 Chainz Form a Superteam to Release a New Album
Wade’s #OneLastDance Dominated February
Warriors Fans Go Wild After Unforgettable Moments with Steph
Eight Years Ago, the Nuggets Traded Melo to the Knicks
Two Years Ago, the Kings Shipped Boogie to the Pelicans
ASG Will Be Competitive Again If the NBA Raises the Stakes
Will Harden Burn Himself Out Before the Playoffs?
When MJ Wore #12 After His Jersey Was Stolen Before a Game
15 Years Ago, LeBron, Wade and Melo Took Over All-Star Weekend
14 Years Ago, Iverson Dropped Career-High 60 Points
The Kyrie and LeBron Bromance Is Back!
Bats Have Become an Unexpected Attraction at Spurs Games

Right Arrow Icon

Oklahoma City Thunder star Russell Westbrook accomplished something that hadn’t been done in 51 years Tuesday night against the Los Angeles Lakers.

The guard finished with 20 points, 21 assists and 20 rebounds in the 119-103 win, becoming the first player to finish with 20-20-20 since Wilt Chamberlain in 1968.

Per the NBA‘s official account, Chamberlain is the only other player to accomplish the feat; he had 22 points, 21 assists and 25 rebounds in 1968.

After the game, Westbrook said he dedicated the performance to Nipsey Hussle, a rapper who was shot and killed Sunday.

OKC THUNDER @okcthunder

Historic night for Russell Westbrook.
20 points // 20 rebounds // 21 assists https://t.co/T3tVWiOIvK

While we have grown accustomed to the guard producing triple-doubles on a near nightly basis, the latest showing was something you won’t see too often at this level.

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2CLBjSf
via IFTTT

New accusations strain Biden defense

Former Vice President Joe Biden backers, supporters and possible staff hires who have watched with dread as his team struggled with the accusations. | Scott Olson/Getty Images

2020 elections

‘They are putting out the bat signal and trying to solicit as many personal testimonials as possible,’ said one Democrat.

The controversy surrounding Joe Biden’s past physical behavior with women seemed to have stopped metastasizing after a team of Democratic defenders fanned out in his defense, seeking to knock down the notion that his tendency to be touchy with women was anything more than innocent affection.

But then came two more names late Tuesday alleging that the former vice president’s overly familiar touching made them uncomfortable, further muddying Biden’s predicament as he considers a third presidential run in 2020.

Story Continued Below

The new accusations, first reported by the New York Times, came just as Biden’s backers felt a measure of relief after four days of debate surrounding the propriety of Biden’s style of interacting with women.

Prominent female voices including former Biden staffers, former Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, actress-turned-activist Alyssa Milano and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly voiced their support during the day, providing a degree of encouragement to Biden backers, supporters and possible staff hires who have watched with dread as his team struggled with the accusations of the first two women who said he made them feel uncomfortable in unrelated instances.

The defense of Biden spanned the party, leveraging years of goodwill accumulated by the vice president.

“Joe took both of my hands in his and looked me in the eye for a long while before he spoke. He said simply, ‘I know, I know.’ For a brief moment we were two souls joined by a loss that changed our lives. After that, Joe would often pause to ask how I was getting along,” former Missouri Sen. Jean Carnahan wrote on Tuesday, relating how Biden comforted her after the loss of her husband and son in a 2000 plane crash.

“He reaches out through the human touch to connect and express those feelings,” she continued before quoting Mother Teresa: “People have forgotten what the human touch is, what it is to smile, for somebody to recognize them, somebody to wish them well.”

Still, even the support came with warnings to learn from the experience. Pelosi gave a bit of advice to avoid being too touchy-feely.

“Join the straight-arm club,” Pelosi said at a POLITICO Playbook breakfast event Tuesday, adding that he needs to keep his distance. “Just pretend you have a cold and I have a cold.”

Biden’s team began its aggressive pushback Monday, calling attempts to cast him as “creepy” part of a “cottage industry of lies.”

As part of that effort — more organic than organized due to his skeleton staff — the Biden camp exploited its long and deep ties to influential media figures and political players in Washington.

“They are putting out the bat signal and trying to solicit as many personal testimonials as possible … trying to encourage people to share their own stories,” said a Democrat with knowledge of the team’s strategy.

That approach was a recognition of the need to stanch the bleeding, but also of a belief that rival campaigns were behind the first salvo fired at Biden on Friday by Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman and 2014 lieutenant governor candidate who described Biden’s unwanted advances. Flores said Democrats needed to have a discussion about his behavior, especially in light of the #MeToo era of politics.

Flores’ account surfaced just as Biden’s consultants began making concrete job offers to potential staffers in early states, according to a Democratic operative who discussed working for Biden.

“They think this is part of a concerted effort to spook him out,” the operative said.

While the former vice president’s team was aware his physical style would become an issue as he geared up for a likely presidential bid later this month — Biden himself seemed to preemptively address the issue recently by referring to himself as a “tactile politician” — few expected the issue to take off because the contact wasn’t sexual in nature.

As recently as Tuesday afternoon, Biden’s allies were insisting the rough scrutiny was not a dealbreaker in his decision-making and that the former vice president remained on track to announce a 2020 decision this month.

“I don’t think this has thrown him off course,” said a person close to the Biden camp. “I think he is dealing with the hits his team thought would come.”

Yet even as they express confidence Biden can weather this storm, some allies worry that the fallout is exposing other potential weaknesses in his prospective candidacy.

“They just didn’t seem prepared and they knew this was coming,” said the Democratic operative. “But maybe that’s what happens when your whole team is a bunch of white guys with the exception of a lone white woman.”

By Tuesday evening, the controversy made President Donald Trump’s radar — he seized on Biden’s troubles, appearing to allude to speculation that Sanders supporters were responsible for the recent stories.

“He’s being taken care of pretty well by the socialists. They got to him,” Trump said in his remarks to the National Republican Congressional Committee annual spring dinner. “Our former vice president…I was going to say welcome to the world, Joe. You having a good time, Joe?”

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2Vmv7Hm
via IFTTT

Senator Anning blasted for New Zealand mosque attack comment

The Australian parliament has overwhelmingly voted to censure an independent far-right senator, Fraser Anning, for his “inflammatory and divisive comments” about the Christchurch mosque attacks.

In a bipartisan motion, the Senate voted on Wednesday to censure Anning, saying his comments were “seeking to attribute blame to victims of a horrific crime and to vilify people on the basis of religion” and does not reflect the opinions of the Senate or of Australians.

Last month, a self-confessed Australian white supremacist killed 50 people in a terror attack on two Christchurch mosques in New Zealand.

Following the attack, which was livestreamed on Facebook, Anning suggested a link existed between Muslim immigration and violence.

He later denounced the attack in New Zealand but insisted it represented what he called the “growing

fear… of increasing Muslim presence”.

Fraser Anning does not deserve to be in parliament.

I have no doubt the community will make sure he is not re-elected in May and I will be doing everything in my power to consign his awful views to the history books where they are so clearly from and where they truly belong. pic.twitter.com/CUrTNx6wFY

— Mehreen Faruqi (@MehreenFaruqi) April 3, 2019

“It is very important that the Parliament is unified in its condemnation of these appalling comments that have been made,” Senator Mathias Cormann of the Liberal party said.

“These comments were appalling and sadly made worse given Senator Anning’s position in this Parliament and the platform he enjoys as a senator.”

Labor’s Penny Wong said the senator blamed the victims “[when] families, friends, communities of those lost were still reeling from the shock”, accusing Anning of embracing hate speech.

Is Austrian government serious about cracking down on the far-right?

“While those injured were being treated, this senator sought to further fan the flames of division. How pathetic. Shameful and pathetic attempt by a bloke who has never been elected to get attention by exploiting diversity as a fault line for political advantage,” said Wong.

A teenager struck Anning on the head with an egg after his comments and the politician hit him twice in the face in response.

An online petition calling for Anning’s removal from the Senate has gained more than 1.4 million signatures, which has gone on parliament’s permanent record. However, the Senate cannot remove a senator unless they are convicted of a crime or ruled ineligible.

The gunman, Brenton Tarrant, will reappears in court this Friday.

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2VgePzQ
via IFTTT

Guaido stripped of immunity by Venezuelan lawmakers

Venezuelan lawmakers loyal to President Nicolas Maduro have stripped Juan Guaido of immunity, paving way for the opposition leader’s prosecution and potential arrest for supposedly violating the constitution when he declared himself interim president.

“[Guaido’s prosecution] is officially authorised,” Diosdado Cabello, head of the Maduro-loyal Constituent Assembly said following an assembly vote on Tuesday.

But whether Maduro’s government will take action against the 35-year-old lawmaker remains unclear.

Guaido has embarked on an international campaign to topple Maduro’s administration amid deepening social unrest in the country plagued by nearly a month of power outages.

Venezuelan judge moves to strip Juan Guaido’s immunity

He declared himself Venezuela’s interim president in January, and vowed to overthrow Maduro. So far, however, Maduro has avoided jailing the man that the administration of US President Donald Trump and roughly 50 other nations recognise as Venezuela’s legitimate leader.

Cabello accused the opposition of naively inviting a foreign invasion and of inciting a civil war.

“They don’t care about the deaths,” said Cabello. “They don’t have the slightest idea of what the consequences of war are for a country.”

The Constituent Assembly met a day after Maduro ally and Venezuela Supreme Court of Justice Maikel Moreno ordered the legislative body to strip Guaido’s immunity for violating an order banning him leaving the country while under investigation by the attorney general.

The opposition leader is also accused of inciting violence linked to street protests, and of receiving illicit funds from abroad.

The Constitution guarantees immunity for elected officials, and says that in order to withdraw immunity the accused lawmaker must be given a preliminary hearing before the Supreme Court. The action must be approved by the National Assembly – steps that weren’t taken in Guaido’s case.

Maduro blames Washington of attempting a coup to overthrow him and install Guaido’s puppet government aimed at seizing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

Venezuelans migrants in Colombia share stories of their struggle

SOURCE:
News agencies

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2TRH8D6
via IFTTT