28 November 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
If it sounds like something a mob boss would say, that’s because it is.
Rolling Stone reports that in the run-up to last week’s election, Trump “made a series of phone calls to GOP lawmakers and other elected officials, demanding that they endorse him before he announced he’s running—or at least right after, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversations.” He added that he was keeping track of who endorsed him early, and that “those who waited too long” were “not gonna like” the fate that would befall them when he wins. He apparently also said that he was tracking who dumped him for Florida governor Ron DeSantis or other possible 2024 primary opponents, according to sources familiar with the matter. “He said it was ‘not a tough call’ to make and that there was one right move: endorsing him ASAP,” one of the sources told the outlet.
And while no one likes to be threatened—and especially not by a guy who has a documented history of going after his perceived enemies—it appears that the tough talk has…not had the effect that Trump had hoped. As Rolling Stone notes, “the party’s heavy hitters—even some who have previously been quick to stand behind him—have been hesitant to hop on board,” and when the ex-president kicked off his candidacy at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday night, “Madison Cawthorn, the scandal-ridden outgoing representative from North Carolina, was the only member of Congress who bothered to attend.”
And the story only gets sadder from there:
Even some of Trump’s former official surrogates are, right now, noncommittal. Jack Kingston, a former US congressman from Georgia who worked as a Trump surrogate before and during his presidency, once told Trump, “I’m with you and I’ll stick with you until the curtain comes down.” On Wednesday, asked if he is going to be Trump’s surrogate again or if he’s going to endorse Trump 2024, Kingston replied, “I am a free agent right now. Focusing on the Georgia runoff, among other things.”
Stephen Moore, another former surrogate and adviser to Trump, was similarly noncommittal when asked about an endorsement: “Not sure yet.” He said, however, “I think if Trump will stay on message about his America First agenda and not obsess about the 2020 elections, then he can be a real force.”
In the last several weeks alone, billionaire Republicans Stephen Schwarzman, Ken Griffin, and Ronald Lauder have publicly dropped him, while his former secretary of state and previously devoted footstool, Mike Pompeo, tweeted: “We need more seriousness, less noise, and leaders who are looking forward, not staring in the rearview mirror claiming victimhood.” Top party leaders Mitch McConnell, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and Kevin McCarthy won’t say if they support him.
In other mob boss behavior, last week Trump told reporters, of DeSantis, “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”
Nancy Pelosi, who will step down from her leadership position, flips Trump off on her way out the door
Unfortunately, becoming a rank-and-file lawmaker does not mean she’ll stop being a target of the House’s most batshit Republicans
Per The New York Times:
The main question going forward is whether Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, who was nominated on Tuesday to lead the new Republican majority, can achieve the unity necessary to perform fundamental tasks such as funding the government, or whether unyielding far-right members will make the new Speaker’s life miserable and the House an unmanageable mess.
Despite their underwhelming showing, Republicans are unlikely to be chastened into cooperating with [Joe] Biden and no doubt will plunge ahead aggressively once they get their hands on the gavels. For many, that was the point of the election. Their agenda is investigative, not legislative.… The only results that interest many in the House majority are those that inflict political pain on Mr. Biden and congressional Democrats, as demanded by their MAGA constituents. In a closed-door meeting of Republicans on Monday, right-wing lawmakers including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia extracted a promise that their leaders would investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Justice Department for their treatment of defendants jailed in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
As a reminder, Greene’s obsession with Pelosi is particularly worrisome given that the Georgia congresswoman has endorsed calls for the long-running House leader to be executed. But we’re sure she’ll take on a more measured, rational tone once she’s sitting on the House Oversight Committee. (Yes, that’s sarcasm. Yes, she’s going to be horrible.)
Well look at that!
READ MORE
Grain trucks form a line behind a wheat field in Odesa where they wait to unload at the Black Sea port. (photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)
Programme to subsidise exports of grain to poor and hungry countries launched on anniversary of Ukraine’s Holodomor famine
In a move that challenges the Russian narrative that the west’s response to its war on Ukraine has aggravated pre-existing food shortages in Africa, Zelenskiy said ships moving out of the Ukrainian port of Odesa can reach humanitarian hotspots such as Sudan, Yemen and Somalia, but only so long as international funding comes forward to subsidise the grain.
The scheme is being organised by a mix of government entities, NGOs and private corporations. The first three ships were due to leave Odesa for Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, although a German-funded ship has already left for Ethiopia.
Zelenskiy said he was launching the programme on the anniversary of the Holodomor, when millions of Ukrainians starved to death in a man-made famine from 1932-33. The programme is being supported by a new international coordination group for the prevention of hunger.
Zelenskiy said in a statement: “Even as the country struggles with food shortages, devastated farmland, and widespread blackouts, we will never forget our role as a responsible global citizen – especially having experienced famine as a nation ourselves. Africa is in desperate need of food and Ukraine stands ready to support vulnerable people in their hour of need.”
Andriy Yermak, the head of the president’s office, said the launch represents a key historical moment not only for Ukraine but for all countries facing severe food shortages due to the ongoing conflict. Yermark called on the international community, including private foundations, to help fund the cost of sending the food to hunger-riven countries.
Russia agreed to extend the Black Sea corridor grain deal last week for a further 120 days. Since the deal was first launched – lifting the Russian blockade on Ukrainian grain across the Black Sea towards Turkey – a total of 11m tonnes of Ukrainian agricultural products had reached 38 countries.
But some of the poorest countries were priced out of the market due to the high price of grain. The new mechanism is designed to ensure that the market pressures sending grain to wealthy areas such as Europe can be countered. The essence of the programme, entitled Grain from Ukraine, is that the countries participating in the project buy agricultural products from Ukrainian producers – the priority is small and medium-sized enterprises – and transfer them to countries on the verge of starvation.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has already agreed to provide up to $20m through the UN World Food Programme. James Cleverly, the British foreign secretary, also announced extra funds on his visit to Ukraine on Thursday.
Egypt and Madagascar are dependent on either Russia or Ukraine for more than 70-80% of their wheat, while Somalia imports more than 90% of its wheat requirement. Eritrea imports 100% of its grain from Ukraine and Russia.
READ MORE
Alina Dotsenko, director of the Kherson Fine Arts Museum, in front of empty shelves in the museum's storage rooms after they were looted by Russia in early November, photographed on Nov. 16, 2022. (photo: Francis Farrell/The Kyiv Independent)
As with the rest of Kherson, which had its electricity infrastructure destroyed by withdrawing Russian forces in early November, the halls of the museum are now cold and dark.
Far more tragically, the Kherson Fine Arts Museum has been emptied of all its works by Russian officials. Of the over 14,000 works in its collection, barely anything remains. Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson was a well-planned operation, a key component of which was the looting of anything deemed to be of financial or cultural value. The Russian campaign of theft was comprehensive and wide ranging, covering everything from hospital equipment and public monuments to an unfortunate raccoon living in Kherson Zoo.
Stolen equipment and monuments can be replaced, but priceless artworks cannot. All that remains now of the once flourishing museum is the building itself, and inside it, the two last staff members who refused to collaborate with Russia.
Speaking to the Kyiv Independent on Nov. 16 in her personal office at the museum, director Alina Dotsenko, 72, steered clear of her old work desk, shuffling closer to the window where the last dim light of the day was making its way in.
“I still can’t bring myself to sit where they sat,” she said, referring to her Russian-installed replacement, a local singer called Natalia Desiatova, who oversaw the looting of the museum’s collection.
Joy upon the liberation of Kherson comes with a bitter aftertaste for Dotsenko, who had initially fled to Ukrainian-controlled territory in early May, after she had refused to host a Victory Day event held by occupation authorities in the museum.
Dotsenko returned to Kherson in a Security Service convoy on Nov. 12, a day after Ukrainian troops entered the city, only to arrive at work for all her fears about the museum to be confirmed.
“Are you trying to bring me to tears again?” she said when asked to recall the day. “I haven’t really lived these last few months, I have only worried and worried."
From intricate 17th century Orthodox icons to works by a multitude of Ukrainian, Russian, and other European masters including Ivan Aivazovsky, Vasily Polenov, Auguste von Bayer and Peter Lely, the museum’s collection was Dotsenko’s pride and joy.
“We didn't expand our collection for the sake of money or status,” she said, “but because of what it meant to the city.”
The museum’s collection was already in storage when Russia’s full-scale invasion was launched on Feb. 24, as the building was undergoing major restoration works. Calls by Dotsenko to evacuate the collection fell upon deaf ears as Kherson fell to Russian forces in a matter of days.
Who is responsible?
The collection of the Kherson Fine Arts Museum joins the Arkhip Kuindzhi Museum in Mariupol among others in the list of priceless cultural assets Ukraine has lost due to Russia’s invasion. These losses could have been prevented by well-prepared evacuation plans put into place when Russia’s invasion became an increasing likelihood.
The evacuations that never happened are the subject of an ugly blame game between the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and local authorities, with both accusing the other of inaction in evacuating priceless museum collections before it was too late.
“Local authorities, managers, and mayors, and governors told me exactly this: ‘There is no need to sow panic for the local population, everything is fine with us,’” said Culture and Information Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko in an interview to Ukrainian Pravda.
Pavlo Andriushchenko, advisor to the Mayor of Mariupol, responded to Tkachenko’s interview on Telegram, reflecting the blame on the ministry.“It would have been great to see at least one piece of paper signed by him, ordering the evacuation of the valuables of Mariupol, overruling the restrictions for the movement of valuables approved by the ministry,” Andriushenko wrote.
“All the collections of Mariupol were lost because of one thing only - because of the reluctance of the ministry to deal exclusively with this issue.”
For the Kherson collection, the damage has been done. A few days after the collection was removed in preparation for the Russian withdrawal, photos emerged on Facebook of dozens of works from the collection stacked up in storage in the Central Taurida Museum in occupied Simferopol, Crimea.
A few days after the collection was removed in preparation for the Russian withdrawal, photos emerged on Facebook of dozens of works from the collection stacked up in storage in the Central Taurida Museum in occupied Simferopol, Crimea.
Enemies inside
In almost any town or city occupied by Russia in Ukraine, locals are found who, motivated by money, pro-Russian sentiments, or bitterness towards colleagues, are willing to cooperate with the occupying authorities.In the case of the Kherson Fine Arts Museum, the presence of one or two collaborants was pivotal in the stealing of the museum’s collection and data.
In the early weeks of the occupation of Kherson, Dotsenko quickly grew concerned that some of the museum staff could soon betray the collection to Russia. In some cases, Dotsenko sent them on paid leave simply so that they wouldn’t be present on the museum grounds.
“I had never trusted them,” she said. “I grew up a daughter of a border guard, so I had my eyes on them all the time.”One collection worker, Maryna Zhylina was even fired last year by Dotsenko, who was increasingly concerned by her openly pro-Russian position. “I had imagined she would leave to Russia, she had a daughter in Moscow,” Dotsenko said. “She was a good worker but pro-Russian from head to toe.”
With the core of the staff remaining loyal, it took several months before Russian occupation authorities got around to taking over the museum, unlike the neighboring Regional Museum, where director Tetiana Bratchenko immediately chose to collaborate.
“Just see how much we held out!” Dotsenko said with pride. “They were in the other museum by the beginning of March, but here, not until July!”
When that day came on July 19, Dotsenko had long left Kherson, and the museum was guarded by accounting and archive worker Hanna Skrypka, 56, a loyal confidant of Dotsenko’s. According to Skrypka, armed Russian men came to the museum’s doors and demanded the keys from her, “to open the space and prepare it for the arrival of the new director.” Requests by Skrypka to show some authorizing documents were denied.
After half an hour of stalling the soldiers, the new “director” Desiatova, arrived. Desiatova was joined by former colleague Anna Koltsova, who had confirmed to the Russians that the collection had not been moved as claimed by Dotsenko, and who had secretly saved copies of the museum’s electronic records on her personal computer before the invasion.
“As I understand it, this individual was towards the end of her life and was simply hoping for a taller pedestal to stand on than what she was given by Ukraine,” said Skrypka. “Traitors, plain and simple.”
Swift and systematic
It was not until the end of October, when the Russian occupation of Kherson was understood to be doomed, that the removal of the museum’s entire collection began.
“They were certain that they were here forever,” Dotsenko said, “but as soon as our soldiers started to come closer, they started to steal everything.”
Starting on Oct. 31, trucks began to line up outside the museum, accompanied by a mix of Russian soldiers, representatives of the Russian Ministry of Culture and Federal Security Service (FSB) officers in civilian clothes. “Everything that was in a visible location attracted their eye right away,” said Skrypka. “Since the so-called ‘colleagues’ of ours who knew where the most valuable artworks were being held, these pieces were taken first according to their instructions.”
Early in the occupation, Dotsenko and Skrypka had tried to hide some of the most valuable works, but the presence of pro-Russian colleagues, Koltsova and Zhylina, rendered these efforts pointless.
“I was trying first to show them some of the Russian artists that weren't as valuable to us personally, in the hope that that would satisfy them,” said Skrypka.
“But the two of them were always there over my shoulder, saying (to the FSB officers) 'well have a look at that shelf, why don't you pull out that one...'"
Two trucks were filled each day with artwork, frames often crudely stacked up against each other with zero care given to proper packaging and temperature controls.
According to Skrypka, the Russians didn’t speak much to her, only justifying their theft on the grounds of “saving” it from the Ukrainian advance, the same message used by local proxy authorities.“This collection that has been here for many decades, and you are "saving" it?” pondered Skrypka. “From whom? From the nation who is coming to liberate its own city?”
By the time Skrypka left the museum on Nov. 4, the removal of over 10,000 works had been accounted for, with more trucks still arriving. “I didn't say goodbye to them,” said Skrypka of her former colleagues. “They had planned a big feast to celebrate the completion of the emptying of the museum, and how could I sit and eat with my enemies?”
Dreams of justice
Though shelling of the city has intensified in the two weeks since liberation, residents on the streets of Kherson are largely optimistic that the rest of Ukraine’s occupied territories will be successfully liberated. Territory can be won back, but it is hard to look with the same optimism at the chances of returning the priceless artworks of the Fine Arts Museum in Kherson. A museum without its collection and archive is a museum without an identity, and the road ahead is uncertain.
While many of its works have been identified in the pictures from occupied Simferopol, it is not known whether the huge collection has been kept together in its entirety. Given the scale of the theft and lack of care shown to the works, it is not unlikely that some pieces disappeared into private hands on the way.
The museum may be empty, but Skrypka is not short of work. Together with Dotsenko, she must now create a comprehensive digital account of all the looted pieces. “We need to record everything that was taken, complete with photos,” she said, “so that if anything happens to show up on a border or at an auction, it can be identified.”
Beyond that, Ukraine’s only hope to return the stolen art, which is officially property of the Ukrainian state, is through international efforts now led by the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture.“When the time eventually comes for peace negotiations, this must be one of the first terms put forward: the return of all artefacts from looted museums,” Skrypka said. “Of course, they won't agree with it, but we need to be loud about it anyway while other channels are pursued.”
For the foreseeable future though, the Kherson Fine Arts Museum as it once was has ceased to exist.
“I don't have any words to describe their relationship to history, to culture, to human life,” said Skrypka.
“What can you teach children about culture, about respecting other cultures if you not only can't protect your own culture, but simply steal from others and call it your own?”
READ MORE
Whales prompt us to ‘reconsider our position at the top of the ecosystem’, says Buller. P: John Van Den Hende/PA)
In her new book, Adrienne Buller argues the desire to eke profit out of climate policy is wilfully naive
Green capitalism may not be what you think it is. With much discussion about the danger of climate denial and the criticism of oil and gas companies’ climate-conscious ads, Buller’s book points to a shift that we risk missing. In the past decade, some capitalists have embraced green politics and not just for the sake of optics. Seeing the climate crisis as an unprecedented threat to capitalism, they don’t want to disprove its existence but solve it. As an example, read the annual letter from the BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink. Their approaches – “prices, markets and clever financial products”, Buller writes – are now “guiding much of the global response to the ecological crisis”. In Buller’s reading, then, my students’ optimism was at least partially founded: capitalists have woken up to the problem. But what to make of their solutions?
“The goal of the book is to try to climb inside the head of someone who would count as a green capitalist,” she says from her living room when we talk over Zoom. Buller, director of research at the thinktank Common Wealth, found that her scepticism of this approach grew at her first job out of university. Working for an organisation that researched how businesses and finance affect the climate, she describes her former role as “engaging investors on shareholder stewardship and modelling how to align investment portfolios with the 1.5C target”. The people she worked with were genuine about their belief in sustainable investment, she says, but she wasn’t convinced.
This, plus her desire to “radicalise” people like her mum – someone who “cares about the climate crisis, cares about my future, is interested in politics, but is a non-expert” – resulted in The Value of a Whale. Appraising the merit of the green capitalist policies on their own terms, Buller picks them apart to see if they pass “basic tests”: do they work now? Will they ever? Will they create injustice in the process?
This is where the whale comes in. Buller has a special affinity with these mammoth yet streamlined creatures: growing up, she would see them in the wild near her home town in Vancouver, Canada. In 2019, researchers at the IMF set out to calculate a whale’s value. Totting up the number of eco-tourists whales lure to different countries, plus the animals’ capacity to store carbon, they came to $2m for each great whale. Monetising them was green capitalism in essence; “squeezing the climate and biodiversity crisis through the lens of neoclassical economy”, writes Buller. Here, the climate crisis is both threat and opportunity.
Referencing the journalist Kate Aronoff’s Overheated and the academic John Bellamy Foster as influences (Kohei Saito’s book Capital in the Anthropocene, forthcoming in English, speaks to similar themes), Buller’s book piqued a lot of people’s interest when it was published in July, including in the finance and corporate sector. “My LinkedIn adds have been out of control,” she says with a smile. Its appeal may lie in the way it methodically examines the “fatal flaws” in different green capitalists’ approaches.
The Value of a Whale argues that their version of decarbonisation preserves existing inequalities while creating new opportunities for profit – neither a viable response to the crisis we’ve created, nor a fair one. She cites three examples. First, carbon offsetting, which is often predicated on the seizure of the global south – just one way in which the freedom to consume affordable goods in the rich world is increasingly based on the unfreedom of people across the world. Second, environmentally conscious investing, which is based on definitions of sustainability that are almost entirely unregulated. And third, asset manager capitalism, under which huge investment companies shape government climate policy so that among the multitude of options available the one that’s attractive to them is privileged. “Think 1:1 replacement of cars with electric vehicles, in lieu of investment in mass transit,” she tells me. “Not all climate policy”, Buller says, “is good climate policy”.
One of the main green capitalist policies that she has in her sights is carbon pricing. Endorsed by politicians, academics and the media, it covers a tax on carbon and cap-and-trade schemes. The market is supposed to internalise the cost of carbon by increasing its price and encouraging companies to switch to cheaper, cleaner energy sources. It is the “efficient” market fix for decarbonisation, according to its proponents.
But according to Buller, the “theoretical elegance” of policies like this relate too little to the scale, complexity and pace of the problems facing humanity. Carbon pricing doesn’t distinguish between different sources. For example: SUV drivers and people who can’t afford to replace their gas boiler are affected in the same way. And even if it can work, it can’t work alone. Decarbonisation “isn’t something that a price signal can just do away with given how embedded these infrastructures are in every part of the global economy”, she says. It needs “huge, strategic and carefully planned investment”.
So much of the global economy is structured around fossil fuels that for carbon pricing to be successful, the price would either have to be “so high that it would be economically devastating”, Buller argues, “particularly to the poor and it’s untenable for that reason. Or it would have to be gentle enough to get buy-in and not cause real economic harm, particularly for the poorest. And in that case, it’s unlikely to really have an impact.” These are not simply knots that we can loosen as we go. “Evidence suggests it isn’t working now at anything like the required pace or scale,” she says, “and there’s little reason to think it will in some imagined future”. She later sends me a link to recent academic studies that, she says, prove her point.
Grow up and engage with the world as it is, capitalists imply – green capitalism offers us a something that is better than nothing. But going along with this, Buller writes, means wilfully ignoring “the accelerating and increasingly desperate pace of climate and ecological breakdown; the failure of capitalism to provide basic welfare and freedom for the world’s majority; the boundless possibility for things to be different”.
Coming back to the whale, at the end of our conversation, Buller says: “They are sentient species for how the ocean and the planet as a whole is faring.” She rolls up her sleeve to show me a small whale tattooed on her arm, the same one that’s on the front of her book and that’s pictured at the start of each chapter. “Their lifespans are so long that when they die you can see the invention of plastic and the acceleration of fuel-based infrastructure and agriculture,” she says. “They hold it in their bodies.”
Alien yet intimate, the whale should force us to think again. She says: “There is something profound about the whale when it comes to thinking about our relationship to the world that at least prompts us to reconsider our position at the top of the ecosystem as this exclusively intelligent being … to reposition ourselves in a web of existence rather than at the pinnacle of some kind of pyramid.”
Completely at odds with green capitalism, this is a glimpse of the other world Buller tells us is possible.
READ MORE
United Furniture Industry employees were given no explanation for why they were terminated so abruptly. (photo: United Furniture Industries)
Workers at Mississippi-based furniture company received text saying they were terminated right before midnight on 21 November
Right before midnight on 21 November, thousands of workers – many of whom were asleep – received a text message from United Furniture Industries (UFI) saying that they were terminated effectively and were no longer allowed to return to work.
“At the instruction of the board of directors … we regret to inform you that due to unforeseen business circumstances, the company has been forced to make the difficult decision to terminate the employment of all its employees, effective immediately,” the message, which the New York Post reviewed, said.
“Your layoff from the company is expected to be permanent and all benefits will be terminated immediately without provision of Cobra,” a follow-up email from the company read, referring to a federal law that gives employees who lose their jobs the option to keep their employer-sponsored health insurance under certain circumstances.
The company also instructed its drivers to immediately “return equipment, inventory and delivery documents”, regardless of “whether or not [they] have completed [their] delivery”.
Employees were given no explanation for why they were terminated so abruptly. On Tuesday, UFI sent out an update regarding the retrieval of their belongings, which FreightWaves reviewed.
“As soon as the property manager can provide a safe and orderly process for former employees to come and gather their belongings, they will do so … We are not certain of the timeframe for this but will communicate proactively,” the email said.
In response, numerous employees expressed shock and frustration at their abrupt firing.
One employee told FreightWaves: “It’s not fair to the laborers who seriously worked so hard to be blindsided like this. It’s not fair to the mom who just had a baby to wonder if she even has health insurance to cover it. It’s not fair to the cancer patient in the midst of chemo about how to pay for her treatments.”
Another employee, TJ Martin, told WLBT: “This has been a drastic shock to every one of us … That puts a damper on everybody’s spirits, especially when you’re told to be ready to hit it hard Monday. Every one of us is dedicated to the company. We consider each other to be family members.”
On Wednesday, former employee Toria Neal filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that it violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not providing at least 60 days notice of its shutdown.
READ MORE
Demonstrators stand by protest signs in Shanghai, China, on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2022. (photo: AP)
A deadly fire at an apartment block in Urumqi, the capital of the far western region of Xinjiang, which killed 10 people and injured nine on Thursday has acted as a catalyst for searing public anger, as videos emerged that seemed to suggest lockdown measures delayed firefighters from reaching the victims.
On dozens of university campuses, students held gatherings or put up posters to grieve the dead from the Xinjiang fire and speak out against zero-Covid. In several cities, residents in locked-down neighborhoods tore down barriers and took to the streets, following mass anti-lockdown protests that swept Urumqi on Friday night.
Such widespread scenes of anger and defiance – some of which stretched well into Sunday – are exceptionally rare in China, where the ruling Communist Party ruthlessly cracks down on all expressions of dissent. But three years into the pandemic, many people have been pushed to the brink by the government’s incessant use of lockdowns, Covid tests and quarantines.
The ratcheting-up of restrictions in recent months, coupled with a series of heartbreaking deaths blamed on an over-zealous policing of the controls, has brought matters to a head.
Protests in Shanghai
The anger led to remarkable acts of defiance in the financial hub of Shanghai, where many of the city’s 25 million residents hold deep rancor against zero-Covid after being subjected to a two-month lockdown in the spring.
Late on Saturday night, hundreds of residents gathered for a candlelight vigil on Urumqi Road, which was named after the city, to mourn the victims of the Xinjiang fire, according to videos widely circulated – and promptly censored – on Chinese social media and a witness account.
Surrounding a makeshift memorial of candles, flowers and placards, the crowd held up blank sheets of white paper – in what is traditionally a symbolic protest against censorship – and chanted, “Need human rights, need freedom.”
In multiple videos seen by CNN, people could be heard shouting demands for China’s leader Xi Jinping and the Communist Party to “step down.” The crowd also chanted, “Don’t want Covid test, want freedom!” and “Don’t want dictatorship, want democracy!”
Some videos show people singing China’s national anthem and The Internationale, a standard of the socialist movement, while holding banners protesting the country’s exceptionally stringent pandemic measures.
Rows of police officers, who initially looked on from the outside, started to move in to push back and divide the crowd around 3 a.m., sparking tense face-offs with the protesters, according to a witness.
The witness told CNN they saw several people arrested and taken into a police vehicle next to the makeshift memorial after 4.30 a.m. They also saw several protesters being grabbed by the officers from the crowd and taken behind the police line. The protest gradually dispersed before dawn, the witness said.
On Sunday afternoon, hundreds of Shanghai residents returned to the site to continue protesting despite a heavy police presence and road blocks.
Videos showed hundreds of people at an intersection shouting “Release the people!” in a demand for the police to free detained demonstrators.
This time around, police appeared to have adopted a more hardline approach, moving faster and more aggressively to make arrests and disperse the crowds.
In one video, a man holding a bundle of chrysanthemum gave a speech while walking on a pedestrian crossing, as a police officer tried to stop him.
“We need to be braver! Am I breaking the law by holding flowers?” he asked the crowd, who shouted “No!” in reply.
“We Chinese need to be braver!” he said to the applause of the crowd. “So many of us were arrested yesterday. Are they without job or without family? We should not be afraid!”
The man put up a struggle as more than a dozen officers forced him into a police car, as the angry crowd shouted “Release him!” and rushed toward the vehicle.
Other videos show chaotic scenes of police pushing, dragging and beating protesters.
In the evening, after one protester was violently dragged away, hundreds of people shouted “triads” at the police, according to a livestream.
University campuses
Many of the protests have broken out on university campuses – which are particularly politically sensitive to the Communist Party, given the history of the student-led Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.
In the early hours of Sunday morning, about 100 students gathered around a protest slogan painted on a wall at the prestigious Peking University in Beijing. A student told CNN that when he arrived at the scene at around 1 a.m., security guards were using jackets to cover the protest sign.
“Say no to lockdown, yes to freedom. No to Covid test, yes to food,” read the message written in red paint, echoing the slogan of a protest that took place on a Beijing overpass in October, just days before a key Communist Party meeting at which Xi secured a third term in power.
“Open your eyes and look at the world, dynamic zero-Covid is a lie,” the protest slogan at Peking University read.
The student said security guards later covered the slogan with black paint.
Students later gathered to sing the The Internationale before being dispersed by teachers and security guards.
In the eastern province of Jiangsu, at least dozens of students from Communication University of China, Nanjing gathered on Saturday evening to mourn those who died in the Xinjiang fire. Videos show the students holding up sheets of white paper and mobile phone flashlights.
In one video, a university official could be heard warning the students: “You will pay for what you did today.”
“You too, and so will the country,” a student shouted in reply.
The campus protests continued on Sunday. At Tsinghua University, another top university in Beijing, hundreds of students gathered on a square to protest against zero-Covid and censorship.
Videos and images circulating on social media show students holding up sheets of white paper and shouting: “Democracy and rule of law! Freedom of expression!”
In one video, a female student could be heard shouting to the cheers of the crowd: “From today onwards, I will no longer perform oral sex for state power!”
Ending lockdowns
In other parts of the country, residents demonstrated against lockdowns of their neighborhoods, following sweeping protests in Urumqi that forced authorities to announce a gradual easing of a lockdown that lasted for more than 100 days.
On Friday night, hundreds of Urumqi residents marched to a government building chanting “end lockdowns,” with some holding the Chinese flag, according to videos circulating on Chinese social media and a Urumqi resident. Smaller protests also erupted at residential communities across the city, which saw residents breaking down lockdown barriers and quarreling with officials.
Throughout the weekend, anti-lockdown protests have rocked neighborhoods in cities from Beijing, Guangzhou and Wuhan to Lanzhou.
According to social media videos, residents at multiple residential communities in Beijing defied lockdown orders. In one compound, residents marched and chanted, “Say no to Covid tests, yes to freedom!”
In the northwestern city of Lanzhou, residents rushed out of locked down compounds on Saturday to roam free in the streets. Videos sent to CNN by a resident show some upturning a Covid workers’ tent and smashing a testing booth.
Earlier this month, residents in the same neighborhood had taken to the streets to demand an answer from authorities over the death of a 3-year-old boy. He had died from gas poisoning after his father was blocked from taking him promptly to a hospital.
That area and other parts of Lanzhou have been locked down since October 1.
READ MORE
Workers sort through a pile of used mobile phones in New Delhi, India. (photo: Kuni Takahashi/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
- E-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world; between 50 and 60 million tons are produced every year.
- The e-waste discarded in 2021 alone weighs more than the Great Wall of China: the heaviest man-made structure in the world.
- 75-80% of e-waste is shipped to countries in Africa and Asia, where poor and marginalized communities suffer health and environmental consequences.
- Electronics contain hazardous materials like lead, mercury, and cadmium, which leach into the surrounding environment when placed in landfills, or when the products are burned by “backyard recyclers” in Global South trying to extract valuable materials like gold and copper.
- Less than 20% of e-waste generated each year is properly recycled.
- E-waste contains valuable materials that can be extracted through proper recycling. It’s estimated that unrecycled e-waste contains $57 billion worth of recoverable precious metals.
- Only 25 US states and Washington, D.C. have some kind of e-waste legislation, either mandating the recycling of e-waste, banning disposal in landfills, or prohibiting export to other countries.
What is E-Waste?
E-waste – also called electronic waste, e-scrap, end-of-life electronics, or WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) – is electronics that have been discarded, donated, or recycled. The term “waste,” however, is somewhat misleading; many items still have value in that they can be repurposed or recycled to extract desirable materials inside them.
Six waste categories are included under the umbrella term of “e-waste:” Temperature exchange equipment (like heating/cooling devices), screens and monitors, lamps, large equipment (like washing machines, dishwashers, copying and printing machines, etc.), small equipment (vacuum cleaners, microwaves, electronic toys and tools, radios), and small IT and telecommunication equipment (cell phones, GPSs, personal computers).
Unlike most general municipal waste, e-waste is extremely hazardous and contains toxic materials like beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and lead, so recycling these products requires intensive sorting and handling. E-waste – in part due to the complex requirements for disposal – is often exported to countries in the Global South, where it poses health and safety hazards for local people who mine valuable materials from end-of-life electronics.
Generation of E-Waste
E-waste is a growing waste stream: the fastest-growing in the world, according to Green Alliance, increasing by 21% between 2014 and 2019. Between 50 and 60 million tons are generated each year, which amounts to about 2-3% of annual global waste. While it might seem like an inconsequential percentage, the consequences of runaway e-waste production are extreme.
Why is There so Much?
When the iPhone was released in 2007, 1.4 million units were sold that year. Now, the same amount of phones are sold every 2.5 days. This growth is representative of our greater dependence upon electronics in all facets of the economy and daily life, from which our mounting e-waste stream arises. It’s estimated that 63.3 million US tons of electronic waste were discarded in 2021 – that’s heavier than the Great Wall of China, the heaviest human construction in the world – and it’s only expected to grow. In 2030, e-waste is projected to hit 81.6 million US tons: an amount that could fill more than 100 Empire State buildings.
Planned Obsolescence
Does it ever feel like new, updated cell phones and computers are coming out much faster than they used to? Not only is this true, but it’s a tactic intentionally employed by technology companies so that older models become outdated faster and faster. Even if a product works perfectly well, sometimes just the perception of it as “old” will drive replacement (called “perceived obsolescence”). On average, a person now only keeps a cell phone for about two to three years. Each new product release also comes with new chargers, adapters, and compatible products, making their older counterparts unusable and trash-bound.
But, some manufacturers will also deliberately design products to last for only a certain amount of time: a phenomenon known as “planned obsolescence.” Sometimes, the cost of repairing a failing phone or computer is actually more expensive than buying a new product: another intentional tactic to drive up purchasing. Oftentimes, new software updates are incompatible with older models, and as the world is upgrading to 5G, entire generations of cell phones will soon become obsolete.
E-Waste Recycling
Because of the many toxic chemicals present in e-waste, discarded electronics must go through a complicated recycling process that involves separating their plastics, metals, and internal circuitry. E-waste recycling provides an alternative to throwing waste in landfills, where it leaches and causes a hazard to both human and environmental health. Recycling services are provided by some local and state governments – or federally, in some countries outside of the US – or by private recycling businesses.
Benefits of Recycling E-Waste
Along with hazardous toxins, e-waste also contains valuable materials that could be reused in future products. According to the EPA, recycling one million cell phones recovers over 35,000 pounds of copper, 772 pounds of silver, 75 pounds of gold, and 33 pounds of palladium. Extracting these materials has economic benefits; a 2018 study found that mining aluminum, copper, and gold is 13 times more expensive than collecting it from properly-recycled electronics
Lithium, for one, is used in many industries and is crucial for making the batteries of electric cars. Because of the huge demand for these vehicles paired with the slow extraction of the element, lithium is in short supply. Mining it from recycled e-waste will supply more to the market, keeping the price of electric cars from skyrocketing due to scarcity.
How is it Done?
The e-waste recycling process entails many steps in order to separate valuable materials from non-valuable and hazardous ones. First, the waste is sorted manually into different types and models and examined to see what can be reused either as parts or to form new products. What is left goes through a demanufacturing process whereby products are disassembled and hazardous material is removed. Photocopying machines, for example, contain toner that is very flammable and could cause explosions in later stages of the recycling process. The remaining non-hazardous waste is shredded in a machine, and from the shreds, valuable materials are removed; a giant magnet captures ferromagnetic materials like iron and steel. This process of finding and removing metals and other desirable materials is what makes the recycling industry profitable. Lastly, water is used to separate the remaining materials (plastic will float, while heavier items will fall).
Why is Recycling E-Waste so Complicated?
In 2019, only 17.4% of global e-waste generated was collected and properly recycled, due in part to the complexity of the process. Each of the six e-waste categories is different – different amounts are generated, they have different economic values, and they pose different threats to human health and the environment – so, the way they must be collected and recycled is very different and requires varied technology. Many products also aren’t designed to be easily recycled, like our ever-slimmer smartphones that resist removal of their batteries. Recycling machines must constantly be upgraded to keep up with changing technology, and manual sorting exposes workers to low levels of chemicals over a long period of time. Regardless, 10/60 elements in most e-waste can’t be recycled through mechanical processes, including aluminum, cobalt, copper, gold, iron, lead, platinum, silver, and tin.
Lack of Regulation
Lack of proper regulation surrounding e-waste in the US also makes disposal more complicated. While other countries have more stringent laws around e-waste, only 25 states and DC have some kind of e-waste legislation, either mandating the recycling of e-waste, banning disposal in landfills, or prohibiting export to other countries. Some states partner with companies to institute a state-wide collection system, and some also impose recycling targets on manufacturers. The US, however, lacks comprehensive federal laws that require manufacturers to provide recycling options for products bought by customers. Ultimately, manufacturers and consumers alike are left to figure out how to deal with waste on their own, which can be costly and lead to improper recycling.
E-Waste Trade and Impact on Human Health
While e-waste recycling has many benefits, recyclers do not all handle the waste in the same way. Rather than adequately recycling materials – which is complicated and costly – some companies merely export the waste to other countries. Herein lie some of the largest humanitarian and environmental concerns regarding e-waste.
E-Waste Dumping
We know that 17.4% of e-waste was formally collected and recycled in 2019, meaning that more than 80% was not. According to the EPA, an undetermined amount of these end-of-life electronics are shipped from wealthy, western nations to less-wealthy countries that don’t have the capacity to either reject or handle the materials properly. In high-income countries, it’s estimated that nearly a quarter of all e-waste is exported. Some e-waste is shipped with the intention of bringing digital technology to countries without sufficient access, but this official reason is often used as a veil to hide illegal exports as well. In all, it’s estimated that 75-80% of e-waste is shipped to countries in Africa and Asia; China, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Vietnam are major targets. Thus, poor and marginalized communities end up paying the health and environmental price of western e-waste.
Backyard Recyclers
In many countries that are the targets of these exports – like India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand – the extraction of materials from e-waste has become an important source of income. In Guiya, China – considered the e-waste capital of the world – 75% of households are engaged in informal recycling.
These “backyard recyclers” make money by recovering precious metals and other valuable materials from inside e-waste. Items like circuit boards are literally gold mines; the gold in e-waste in 2016 equaled about 10% of what is mined every year. Open-air burning and baths of mercury and hydrochloric, nitric, and other acids are used to melt non-valuable materials away. Once they’re corroded or exposed to radiation, the toxic chemicals in electronics are then released into the atmosphere.
Many of the people engaging in this work are women and children; some 12.9 million women and 18 million children and adolescents work in the informal waste sector and are exposed to more than 1,000 harmful substances, according to the WHO. This exposure to chemicals like lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, among others – especially when coupled with a lack of safety gear – is extremely detrimental to these workers, and is directly linked to cancer and other health problems. Exposure to e-waste toxins can lead to miscarriages, low birth weights, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and other adverse birth outcomes in mothers, and neurocognitive issues and decreased lung function in children, who also have a greater chance of developing cancer or cardiovascular disease later in life.
Not only are workers impacted, but also communities nearby these open-air burning operations. EWMs (e-waste related mixtures) are highly toxic combinations that can spread very far from the site of their release and are encountered through inhalation and contact with contaminated soil, food, and water.
It should be noted that not all e-waste accumulated in the Global South is from exports. In Ghana and other parts of West Africa, for example, a sizable percentage of e-waste is produced locally.
Other Adverse Impacts of E-Waste
Environmental Impact
Through both informal backyard recycling and leaching from landfills, the toxins in e-waste have a very detrimental environmental impact, especially regarding water pollution. Rain dissolves the chemicals in e-waste, which then runs off into other waterways, acidifies rivers, poisons wildlife, and contaminates drinking water supplies.
Cancer-causing Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) – which include industrial chemicals like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDT (a pesticide) – resist environmental degradation, and can leak into waterways and the air. These pollutants can bioaccumulate in seafood, contaminate dust particles in the air, and even increase the greenhouse effect when exposed to the atmosphere. Temperate exchange equipment like refrigerators and air conditions also contribute directly to climate change by slowly releasing greenhouse gases. It’s thought that 98 million metric tonnes leak from scrap yards every year, according to The Conversation, which equates to 0.3% of emissions from the energy sector.
Loss of Resources
When e-waste is not recycled and its valuable materials extracted, huge amounts of money and resources are lost. It’s estimated that unrecycled e-waste contains $57 billion worth of recoverable precious metals like gold, silver, and platinum – that’s more than the GDP of most countries. Losing out on these existing resources means that more mining is necessary to extract more metals and rare materials, which leads to acid mine drainage, other pollution, and alteration of the landscape. Some materials like cobalt are also found mainly in areas experiencing dangerous conflict.
E-Waste Solutions
Besides legitimate e-waste recycling (and emerging e-waste recycling technologies), solutions to our growing e-waste problem do exist.
Electronics Repair
In the absence of more durable products, “Right to Repair” laws are being dealt with at the state level, and would require companies to provide consumers with pieces needed to perform simple repairs on their products. Groups like iFixit also provide do-it-yourself solutions to consumers; they list free repair guides for most common products ranging from phones, to tablets, to gaming systems, to hand tools.
Policy Change
To meaningfully address e-waste production and disposal, proper legislation is crucial.
At of the end of 2019, 78 countries that contain 71% of the world’s population had implemented policies, legislations, or regulations to manage e-waste, or had a plan to do so – but in most places, these are not legally binding. Some countries have taken meaningful action against e-waste, like the EU, which has very tough enforcement of their e-waste laws. EU citizens have guaranteed access to free recycling programs for e-waste, a ban has been placed on exports to less-wealthy countries, and manufacturers must play a part in recycling: all policies which help the EU maintain an electronics recycling rate of about 35%.
In the US, however, there is no federal law requiring that e-waste be recycled or prohibiting the export of it to countries in the Global South, and recycling rates are much lower. The country is also not party to the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste (1989), of which 187 UN Member States are parties to and control the international movement of hazardous waste. The US does participate in the International E-Waste Management Network (IEMN) – where governments come together to exchange best practices around e-waste, but it is non-binding and doesn’t represent an official government position – and some states have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, which require that manufacturers of electronics must have systems in place for collecting and recycling old products.
Change From Producers
Some companies are taking action against e-waste themselves. Apple, for example, now offers credit for iPhones that are traded in, and like some other companies, they are now mining materials from end-of-life Apple products to create new ones. Apple also introduced a recycling robot named Daisy in 2018, which can dismantle 200 iPhones every hour – but, this still does not keep pace with the rate at which products are produced and thrown away.
Takeaway
The growing production and harmful disposal of e-waste is a complicated issue: one that transcends borders and is tied to human, environmental, and economic health. But, there are both macro- and micro-level solutions, beginning with individual action to combat the production and improper disposal of electronics.
How You Can Help
- Buy less. Minimizing the electronics you purchase also has an economic incentive: you won’t be out a grand every couple of years when a new iPhone comes out! Instead, take care of electronics – from computers to phones, to kitchen appliances – so they last for as long as possible.
- Repair. When products do fail, work to repair them yourself. Visit iFixit to find repair guides, or use other online resources to learn how to safely and effectively fix what’s broken. If you’re unable to do so on your own, take the product to a professional for repairs.
- Resell. Even if you no longer want a product, someone else might. List used electronics on Facebook Marketplace, eBay, Poshmark, or other online retailers.
- Recycle. When you do have to recycle products, do so correctly. Delete all personal information from your devices, and remove batteries to be recycled separately. Use these online search tools from Call2Recycle, Earth911, and the Consumer Technology Association to find places where electronics recycling is accepted (including batteries). After you find a recycler, find out whether they are legitimate. E-Stewards will help you find vetted recyclers that don’t just export the waste they collect.
- Advocate for better policies. Become involved in the fight for better, comprehensive legislation around e-waste that prioritizes human health and the environment over profit.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.