10 November 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Let’s read between the lines.
“I don’t deal in feelings,” McConnell told ABC News. “The question is, they’ve got to count the votes and then we’ll figure out where we are.”
McConnell’s reflexive disgust at a question about feelings is charming. But while he may not deal in feelings, one suspects he might be having a certain feeling quite strongly. A feeling he’s familiar with. He might—might—be very mad at Donald Trump for potentially blowing Republican Senate control for the second time in as many election cycles.
Consider how Trump has gone out of his way to harm Senate Republicans, and whether you would be very mad about it if you were the top Senate Republican.
In 2020 all Republicans had to do to maintain control of the Senate was win 1 of 2 runoffs in Georgia. This should have been an achievable goal! They did it quite easily in 2008, with voters wanting to put a check on the administration of President-elect Barack Obama.
But in 2020, some Republicans didn’t feel the need to apply the same check to President-elect Biden because they didn’t believe there was a President-elect Biden. Trump insisted that the election had been stolen from him and forced Georgia GOP Senate candidates to push that message or he wouldn’t campaign for them. The net effect was to dampen GOP base turnout in the runoffs relative to Democratic turnout. Republicans lost both runoffs and control of the Senate, and Mitch McConnell lost his job as majority leader, in part because of Trump’s making up stories about a stolen election.
The following day, a mob of goons violently ransacked the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the counting of electoral votes. On that day—one day after Trump had cost McConnell his position as majority leader, which was followed up by egging on a bunch of dingdongs to trash McConnell’s workspace—the former majority leader absolutely dealt in feelings, delivering a scorching speech against Trump on the Senate floor. At the time, they hadn’t spoken in about a month. They still haven’t.
Soon enough, though, McConnell reverted to reluctant acceptance of Trump’s apex role in Republican politics. He gave another searing speech against Trump during the second impeachment trial, sure, but voted against convicting him. A few months later, he called in personal favors from fellow Senate Republicans to kill legislation that would have created a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate Jan. 6. Forget the past! What mattered to McConnell, then, was retaking Senate control, and a Jan. 6 committee with Republican buy-in would’ve distracted from his messaging against the Biden administration.
Republicans still have a very real chance of taking back the Senate. But Trump has only made it harder for them to do so, every step of the way.
In a diffuse sense, Trump created a litmus test in which Republicans in swingy Senate seats had to at the very least dip a toe into 2020 election denialism to get through their primaries. That was a general-election knock against all of them.
More directly, Trump was personally responsible for the recruitment of Herschel Walker, a recruitment McConnell’s team was first wary of, before accepting him because it was not worth the fight. Also, Trump single-handedly pushed Mehmet Oz into the GOP Senate nomination in Pennsylvania with his endorsement. (Trump, today, is reportedly blaming his wife for this pick.) He also endorsed J.D. Vance, a buddy of his son’s, in an Ohio Senate race that Vance carried only after McConnell’s super PAC had to bail him out to the tune of tens of millions of dollars that could have gone to not-Ohio. Trump’s anger at Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey for not overturning the state’s 2020 presidential election results dimmed McConnell’s ability to recruit Ducey, a good candidate, to run for Senate. Instead, Republican primary voters—with Trump’s endorsement—went for Blake Masters, a novice with an unsettling affect, who’s hanging on for dear life against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly.
McConnell’s super PAC bailed out, or tried to bail out, a lot of Trump’s preferred candidates this election cycle. The Senate Leadership Fund spent tens of millions of dollars in each of the Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina Senate races. Trump did plenty of rallies for his hand-picked group of mediocrities but mostly sat on his cash.
Had it not been for Trump’s lazy malignance, McConnell could be celebrating incoming Senators-elect Doug Ducey and Dave McCormick today while waiting to see what the final majority count would be. Instead—unless Democrats can take both Nevada and Arizona, which would be enough for them to retain Senate control already—control could once again come down to another Georgia runoff, on Dec. 6.
And Trump, who’s planning to announce a presidential campaign next week, could once again screw up Georgia by making all the news about him. While we’re at it, let’s not forget that Trump has also been throwing racist nicknames at McConnell’s wife (Trump’s former secretary of transportation). And McConnell can’t do anything about any of this because Trump still controls the Republican Party.
So, if you were Mitch McConnell—if you were this man—how might you be feeling today? Would you be so mad at Donald Trump that you could barely contain yourself? Or would you, say, not “deal” in such feelings?
READ MORE 
A woman votes at Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church in Memphis, Tenn., on Tuesday. (photo: Patrick Lantrip/AP)
The Louisiana vote was roughly 61% to 39%, as of early Tuesday. On the ballot, the proposed amendment’s title didn’t use the term “slavery.” Instead, it referred to “involuntary servitude.” The final language also would have provided an exception for “the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice.”
State Rep. Edmond Jordan, who first proposed the change, had said, “involuntary servitude, in this case, is just a sanitized version of slavery,” as member station WRKF reported. But after his proposal was revised, he urged people to vote against it.
Opponents of Louisiana's slavery proposal had warned it would threaten the state’s ability to compel prisoners to serve their time “at hard labor.” As WRKF noted, “Inmate labor is ubiquitous in the Louisiana criminal justice system.”
"Jordan said the way that his proposal was tweaked would actually broaden the state's authority to use involuntary servitude — not limit it," Capitol Access reporter Paul Braun said on WRKF last month. If voters approved the measure, Braun added, Jordan planned to file another proposal next year to fix it.
The U.S. officially abolished slavery with the 13th Amendment — but it also has an exception allowing slavery as "punishment for crime." Many state constitutions also include that exception, and advocates have been pushing to change that. Systems of involuntary servitude for prisoners, they say, is equivalent to slavery.
READ MORE
The Chief Twit is frantically working to keep advertisers from fleeing for good. (photo: Michael Gonzalez/Getty)
The Chief Twit is frantically working to keep advertisers from fleeing for good.
Twitter lost—either temporarily or permanently—at least nine of its major advertisers in the two weeks after Musk took the helm, including big names like General Mills and Volkswagen. Many of the brands suggested they were concerned about potential changes to the platform’s content moderation policies, and whether their ads would be placed next to racist or hateful speech. (Musk, meanwhile, blamed the exodus on the activists organizing a boycott of the platform.)
On Wednesday, he seemed determined to win back corporate support, taking a softer, more moderate tone as he discussed thorny issues such as mitigating toxic speech and implementing a broader verification system.
Below are the top takeaways from Musk’s attempted kumbaya moment.
Musk ditched his internet troll persona
In his tweets, Musk has developed a reputation as a provocateur, posting (then deleting) a fringe conspiracy theory about last month’s attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, engaging repeatedly with right-wing users (including several interactions with one named Catturd), and making reference to the numbers “69” and “420,” the latter of which is associated with marijuana. During Wednesday’s call, Musk sounded far more subdued, perhaps in an effort to appear responsible and even-keeled to advertisers. The billionaire has acknowledged that Twitter quickly suffered a “massive drop in revenue” after he took over, helped by activist groups urging companies to pause or cease spending. He suggested this week that he has grounds to sue the organizers of those boycotts, but the activists (and legal experts) don’t seem to be taking him seriously.
In a statement on Wednesday, Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at the public advocacy group Free Press—one of the protest organizers—dismissed Musk’s effort to “woo advertisers back” via the Twitter Space. “Musk pays lip service to principles of innovation, free speech, and inclusiveness,” she said. “Unfortunately, he has a long track record of silencing and targeting speech he dislikes.”
Users who don’t pay for verification will be buried
Musk is aggressively pushing users to pay $8 per month for Twitter Blue, which will get them a blue “verified” check next to their username. Prior to the acquisition, the checkmarks had been reserved for politicians, brands, journalists, and other users likely to be impersonated. While details of Musk’s changes have seemed to evolve by the hour, on Wednesday he suggested that Twitter will bury content published by anyone who doesn’t pay the monthly fee. “Over time, maybe not that long of a time, when you look at mentions and replies and whatnot, the default will be [to those who are] verified,” he said. Musk added that users will be able to find posts from unverified accounts, but it would be akin to sifting through the spam folder in Gmail.
Musk’s right-wing acolytes may be bummed about his approach to content moderation
“There’s a big difference between freedom of speech and freedom of reach,” Musk said on Wednesday. “If you just were to go to Times Square right now, there’s going to be somebody saying something crazy… We don’t throw them in prison for that, but we also don’t put them on a gigantic billboard.”
Some fringe users, including right-wingers who initially celebrated Musk’s purchase, may be frustrated to hear that. For years, many of them had complained that they were being suppressed, or “shadow banned,” preventing their content from reaching the widest possible audience. Musk, in trying to assuage advertisers, insisted that “thus far, our moderation policies have not changed.”
Twitter’s forthcoming “content moderation council” will be toothless
Soon after the acquisition, Musk announced that Twitter would establish a “content moderation council” to weigh in on policy decisions, including which currently suspended accounts to unban. Facebook has a similar advisory body. The billionaire emphasized during Wednesday’s conversation that the group will be an “advisory council, not a command council,” and that final decision-making power will rest with him. “At the end of the day, I am the Chief Twit here,” he said. Interestingly, Musk also stated that while he intends for Twitter to remain neutral as a platform, he has no plans to stay neutral himself. “No person is,” he said.
Musk wants to reduce the influence of media outlets
“Power to the people,” the world’s richest man declared, calling for an increase in “citizen journalism” to combat the concentration of influence held by media outlets. Right now, he asserted, the “Western narrative” is “overly defined by a small number of major publications.” Musk said he doesn’t want to diminish the power of media outlets and reporters, but instead amplify alternative points of view. Journalists are often assailed on Twitter—particularly by right-wing users—for maintaining a homogenous “blue checkmark” ideology. Musk likened the current verification system to one of “lords and peasants,” adding: “At least in the United States, we fought a war to get rid of that stuff.”
The billionaire wants to rapidly evolve Twitter’s technology
Having, by his own admission, overpaid for Twitter, Musk is now seeking alternative revenue streams. On Wednesday, he suggested that technology upgrades to the platform could include “one-click” shopping, allowing people to send money to each other, and offering users a high-yield money market account—effectively turning Twitter into a bank. The proposed upgrades echo Musk’s previously stated vision of converting Twitter into an “everything app” analogous to WeChat, a hugely popular app in China.
READ MORE 
Maxwell Frost marching in Orlando's Pride Parade. (photo: Giorgio Viera/Getty)
ALSO SEE: Progressive Candidates Score Crucial Wins In Midterm Elections
Frost was heavily favored to win the Orlando-based seat, which is solidly Democrat. He defeated Republican Calvin Wimbish by 19 percentage points. Frost will succeed outgoing Democratic Rep. Val Demings, who challenged incumbent Marco Rubio in the Senate. Rubio won his reelection, according to the AP.
"History was made tonight," Frost tweeted. "We made history for Floridians, for Gen Z, and for everyone who believes we deserve a better future."
The 25-year-old's victory marks a pivotal moment for progressive activists who came of voting age over the last decade and found their political voice in response to divisive issues including gun violence.
I started Organizing at 15 because I didn’t want to get shot at school. https://t.co/skaG2PGN6Z
— Maxwell Alejandro Frost (@MaxwellFrostFL) November 5, 2022
Frost, who has a background as an organizer, first became an activist after the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in 2012. Before running for Congress, he served as the national organizing director for March for Our Lives, a group that advocates for gun control policy.
Gun control continues to be a top issue among younger voters. According to recent polling from Harvard Institute of Politics, 22% of respondents said it was either their most important or second most important issue – compared to inflation (45%,) abortion (33%) and "protecting democracy" (30%).
Gun violence prevention was a core tenet of Frost's platform, along with supporting progressive policies like Medicare for all and a Green New Deal.
Following the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Frost confronted Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis at an event over the governor's second amendment views.
Frost raised over $2.5 million and was endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey as well as the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
When Frost takes office in January, he'll join a Congress known for lacking diversity in age – given the current membership is the oldest in U.S. history.
But that could slowly be changing, according to Amanda Litman, the co-founder of Run for Something, an organization that supports young people running for state and local office.
"You see one 25-year-old run for Congress and win, you think I can do this too, and then more people step up. Someone is the first, more people are the second and the third, and the fourth," she told NPR.
"I am also very confident that because political engagement and political activity is a habit, it's a muscle, you build it and then it gets stronger and stronger and stronger," Litman added. "We are just seeing the beginning of Gen Z's engagement as political leaders."
Members of Willie McCoy’s family hug in front of Vallejo City Hall during a protest on Feb. 28, 2019, three weeks after police killed the 20-year-old. (photo: Geoffrey King/Open Vallejo)
More than two years ago, the California DOJ endorsed 45 reforms for the Vallejo police. The department has implemented 2 of those.
When a series of fatal shootings attracted national attention and the scrutiny of state officials in 2020, Vallejo’s leaders pledged to implement 45 reforms recommended by a private consulting group and overseen by the California Department of Justice. But officials have blown past deadlines and failed to follow through on nearly all of the promised reforms. Reporting by Open Vallejo and ProPublica has found that the city has fully implemented just two.
“We are continuously working on new and revised policies related to the remainder” of the recommendations, a city spokesperson said last week in a joint statement with the police department. “The City and the department have steadily increased the resources devoted to the task, most recently forming a dedicated task force comprised of four full-time dedicated officers.”
Later the same week, Vallejo police Chief Shawny Williams, considered a reformer by many, announced his resignation. The newsrooms reported in July how Vallejo police consistently failed to properly investigate killings by officers.
Days after being presented with our findings for that story, the department put out a proposal to begin addressing one of the key recommendations from the state DOJ: to modify how the department investigates fatal shootings and other critical incidents.
But for all its pledges, the city has little to show — and some of the efforts are being impeded by union and city officials.
“All we want is police reform,” Melissa Nold, the local civil rights attorney for two families whose loved ones were killed by Vallejo police, said in an interview. “We thought they would do the right thing, but here we are.”
“Lack of Concrete Follow-Through”
Things looked like they might begin to change three years ago, after a group of Vallejo officers fired 55 rounds at 20-year-old musician and producer Willie McCoy, who had fallen asleep behind the wheel of his Mercedes, a gun allegedly in his lap.
McCoy’s death, in February 2019, garnered national media attention and sent residents to the streets in protest. That summer, amid the public outcry, the department hired a private consulting firm called OIR Group to conduct a “constructive analysis” of its practices.
Roughly a year later the city released the results of the consultants’ work: They identified “timing concerns” — specifically long delays in investigations of police killings — as well as a “lack of concrete follow-through” on the issues identified by those reviews, and an “apparent reticence when it came to finding fault.” They strongly advised the department to revise its system for investigating fatal shootings to ensure comprehensive reviews in “time-appropriate phases.” All in all, the outside firm made 45 recommendations, which also included strengthening reviews of the use of force by officers and creating an independent police oversight body.
Weeks later, in a highly unusual move, the chief fired officer Ryan McMahon for endangering a colleague when he shot at McCoy, records released by the city show. At the time of McCoy’s death, McMahon was already under investigation for killing an African American man. McMahon was the first Vallejo officer to be fired for conduct during a fatal shooting in at least 10 years. (McMahon was not criminally charged in either shooting; he did not respond to requests for comment.)
The OIR Group’s recommendations, however, were nonbinding, and the department did not immediately release plans for implementing them.
Then, less than a month after the reforms were proposed, Vallejo police Detective Jarrett Tonn fired five rounds from a rifle at 22-year-old Sean Monterrosa from the backseat of an unmarked police truck, public records show. The young Latino man was killed by a single bullet to the back of the head. It was one week after the murder of George Floyd. Tonn, a SWAT officer who participated in three nonfatal shootings since joining the department in 2014, said he mistook a hammer, later recovered in Monterrosa’s sweatshirt pocket, for a firearm. (Tonn was not charged in any of these shootings; the criminal investigation into the Monterrosa shooting is still open.)
Three days later, on June 5, concerned by the “number and nature” of police shootings in Vallejo, the California DOJ announced that it would conduct a three-year review of the department’s policies and practices — a relatively rare occurrence in California that can open the door to further scrutiny and potential civil or criminal sanctions.
The state DOJ embraced the 45 recommendations that the OIR Group had put forth and set out to evaluate Vallejo’s progress in implementing them. To do that, the DOJ hired Jensen Hughes, a global risk management firm, and defined steps for each reform that Vallejo police had to fulfill before they would deem the department compliant. Williams called the process a “massive review” and agreed to collaborate.
In less than two weeks, the Vallejo Police Department produced a draft implementation plan estimating that the steps for most reforms, including changes to the post-shooting review process, would be completed around February of 2021. But the plan itself noted that the target timelines it was setting did not take into account review by stakeholders like the union. In the end, the department missed more than a dozen deadlines, subsequent reports show.
In March 2021 the department set new goals to complete most recommendations within one year. By May of this year, however, it released a progress report revealing that the police department had achieved DOJ compliance with only one reform: a stricter requirement that officers activate their body cameras and mandated audits of some of the footage. The policy change, instituted by Williams, had been entrenched before the state DOJ’s review even began. (Despite the new policy, none of the officers present during the Monterrosa killing — which took place after this requirement was added — activated their body cameras prior to the shooting; three of the officers involved incorrectly claimed they were not required to turn them on because they were detectives rather than patrol officers.)
Since then, Vallejo has “completed and implemented” just one additional reform: an accountability program to ensure that the body camera policy would be enforced, according to the city’s statement to the news organizations.
“Implementation of new policies is a multi-step process,” the city wrote. The statement also said officials were “optimistic” that with the new task force dedicated to the reforms, moving “to full completion status will occur more rapidly.”
The California DOJ declined to answer specific questions about Vallejo’s compliance with the reform standards. “No public updates to share on our end at this point in time,” the DOJ press office wrote in response to requests for comment. “Our office remains committed to executing the terms of the agreement.”
The Vallejo Police Department also claimed in the May progress report that it had reached the implementation phase for 11 other recommendations. The report underscored changes to the hiring process to prioritize diversity and an increase in civilian staffing to support police services (for example, dispatchers or workers in the department lobby). In his statement to the news organizations the same month, Williams also noted several reform “highlights,” including changes to the department’s de-escalation policy, but did not talk specifically about compliance with the state DOJ’s measures.
As of May, the remaining 32 reforms remained untouched or in draft form, including key changes to how the department reviews fatal incidents and the implementation of an independent police oversight agency. The city did not provide updated information about its progress on the uncompleted recommendations.
“Resounding” Resistance
The issue of independent oversight, which was recommended by the OIR Group and endorsed by the California DOJ, has become a key point of contention among officials.
City officials, and in one case the police union, have resisted establishing an independent agency with the power to hold the department accountable, sources with knowledge of the matter told the news organizations. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss processes relating to the California DOJ’s intervention in Vallejo.
In the fall of 2020, after the McCoy and Monterossa killings, the city asked a coalition of local nonprofits called Common Ground to help research permanent oversight models for Vallejo, an effort soon joined by Mike Nisperos, a retired attorney who is a member of the Vallejo Chief’s Community Advisory Board and a founding member of Oakland’s Police Commission. The city estimated that finding a model would take about six months and planned for a temporary solution in the meantime.
“Independent oversight cannot wait,” Vallejo’s then-city manager wrote in a City Council report advocating for an “interim auditor” to oversee the department. On Feb. 23, 2021, the city unanimously voted to hire OIR Group to review citizen complaints, conduct independent investigations and produce public reports while Common Ground and Nisperos researched a permanent model.
“We can’t have police police themselves,” Ashley Monterrosa, the sister of Sean Monterrosa, said at a City Council meeting where she, her sister Michelle Monterrosa and others advocated for strong police oversight.
But even the temporary oversight was never put in place. In July 2021, the Vallejo Police Officers’ Association sent Williams a cease-and-desist letter, obtained by the news organizations, demanding that the city refrain from hiring the independent auditor. The union alleged that the city violated California law by failing to consult with union officials, and it threatened to file a complaint with the state. Nisperos said he believed the pressure by the union may have caused the interim oversight proposal to falter.
The union, Williams, the city and city attorney, and the OIR Group did not comment on what happened with the interim proposal.
As the interim solution stalled, Nisperos and Common Ground continued to advocate for permanent oversight and produced a 40-page draft ordinance that would have created three branches of oversight, including a community review agency with the power to investigate fatal shootings and other incidents. Nisperos and Common Ground gathered feedback on the draft from all seven members of the Vallejo City Council, Williams, police oversight experts, residents impacted by police violence and the state DOJ.
Despite repeated requests, however, Vallejo City Attorney Veronica Nebb did not provide feedback on the draft for more than a year, Nisperos said, adding that he considers Nebb a “deliberate impediment” to reform.
The city disputed this assessment. “The City Attorney, in conjunction with the City Manager, have worked to build consensus with the community through numerous community meetings as well as meetings with Police Department leadership, the unions, and sworn and civilian staff,” the city wrote in a statement to Open Vallejo and ProPublica. The statement also said that between them, the city attorney and city manager had met with Common Ground three times since 2020, that they had reviewed the draft and that they would meet with the group again once the new ordinance was produced, this or next month. “Consensus-building efforts have always been in place and will continue.”
In August, Nebb — who plays a major role in handling the oversight reform — announced during a council meeting that the city could soon “begin to look at drafting” oversight legislation. Her 55-minute presentation did not address the draft ordinance that had been circulating among city officials for nearly 18 months.
“You have people who dedicated two years to put in research, to putting a model together for you,” Michelle Monterrosa said about the Common Ground ordinance at the meeting. “Let’s stop wasting time.”
Several elected officials at the meeting agreed. “I’m just ready to go on this, I’m ready to have something put in place,” Councilmember Mina Loera-Diaz said.
“The resistance from the city attorney’s office was resounding,” Councilmember Tina Arriola said in a September interview. “There’s just no budging.”
In presenting the city’s plan to draft its own ordinance, Nebb had raised concerns that an oversight body with the power to implement discipline or overrule the chief’s decisions could scare off potential police recruits. Advocates are concerned that she will water down the powers of the oversight agency. Nebb did not respond to specific questions about these efforts.
But barriers did not only originate from the union or city attorney’s office.
The union itself suggested in a May statement to Open Vallejo and ProPublica that the now-former police chief too has been an obstacle to change, and it claimed it had tried to set up meetings to discuss a handful of reforms but had gotten close to “zero response from the city.”
Williams, who has repeatedly expressed support for the reforms, did not respond to questions about the union’s claim.
In September, a representative for Jensen Hughes, the firm hired by the state DOJ, told Williams that it had developed “defined concerns” that a lack of involvement of top leadership was affecting the reform efforts, according to an email disclosed in response to a public records request. The email outlined several matters requiring “leadership” that instead were being left to lieutenants. A spokesperson for Jensen Hughes declined to comment for this story, and Williams did not comment on the firm’s findings.
A few weeks later, Williams unexpectedly took three weeks off and subsequently announced his resignation.
With a council election this week and less than eight months left until the end of its three-year agreement with the California DOJ, Vallejo could exit state supervision with no independent oversight, unless the state decides to extend — or escalate — its intervention in Vallejo.
“They want to continue doing what they’ve been doing for 20 years,” said Willie McCoy’s brother, Kori McCoy, about Vallejo’s handling of the reforms. McCoy’s family, who supports the Common Ground proposal, is demanding that the city implement the oversight ordinance as part of their civil rights lawsuit against the city; their attorney, Melissa Nold, said they will not accept any settlement money unless officials agree to impose outside oversight on the police.
“I don’t see how you’re going to fix the problems with the same people,” McCoy said. “ Police run that city, and people are afraid.”
READ MORE
Egyptians working to protect the climate say that COP27 being held in Sharm el-Sheikh is a propaganda tool for the country’s regime. (photo: FreedomForAlaa/Twitter)
Egyptians working to protect the climate tell VICE World News that COP27 being held in Sharm el-Sheikh is a propaganda tool for the country’s regime.
In video interviews, three people working to protect the environment in Egypt said the real hard work should start once the thousands of foreign visitors leave at the end of COP.
The huge expense of accessing the conference has meant that many local organisations haven’t been able to attend, meaning they can’t showcase their work or lobby for funding, which in turn makes it harder for them to gain international recognition.
“I don't think anything will happen after COP,” Ahmed, who runs an initiative that aims to reduce plastic pollution in the country and whose name has been changed for security reasons, told VICE World News on a video call. “I think they [the government] will use these two weeks as propaganda and when COP ends, all the announcements, all the small efforts or initiatives, will end.”
He said despite “small initiatives” being introduced, such as banning single-use plastic in some areas of the country, there’s been no real impact as these rules aren’t being implemented.
He also said there’s so many “positive things happening in Egypt”, ranging from companies working in sustainable fashion, to renewable energy initiatives. These organisations hoped the Egyptian government would include them in the preparations for COP and jump at the chance to showcase their work but this hasn’t happened.
“We feel very sad that we are not involved in anything. We feel completely rejected,” Ahmed said.
Ahmed believes those in power are “indirectly” blocking the voices of climate activists and those working in the environmental industry by limiting their access to attend the conference. For example, the process to get accredited to attend was lengthy, complicated, and uncertain for many local activists. On top of that, organisations have to foot the large bill in order to have a booth to showcase their work, which he says costs around $20,000 (£17,484/€20,034) on average.
“This amount is not affordable to 99 percent of local NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) here in Egypt. Nothing has been organised through any ministry to be able to invite CSOs to give them free space to exhibit, to give them some presence, some access. We are really on our own.”
He said that without being able to showcase the work being done, organisations can’t discuss the challenges they face.
Money has also been an issue for other organisations looking to attend COP. Mohammed, who works for an environmental NGO in Egypt, has found the costs of travel and accommodation “challenging”. We have withheld his last name for security reasons.
“I don't think it's been easy, especially for local organisations across rural Egypt, away from the hubs of Cairo and Alexandria,” he told VICE World News.
“There have been attempts to be more inclusive, but this doesn’t include provision of accommodation and transportation. This is the excluding part of all this; the majority of these organisations cannot afford to go to COP this year with the current costs.”
As for climate activists being able to raise their voices, Mohammed says even using the word “activist” is problematic under Egypt’s authoritarian regime.
“We don't use the term ‘activist’ because the situation in Egypt is complicated. You have to navigate what you say very well.”
People speaking out against the Egyptian government fear jail, as political activists are routinely given prison sentences for even minor criticisms.
During COP, Egypt will be scrutinised for other issues from politics to human rights abuses. The family of imprisoned pro-democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah have used the event to highlight the urgent need for his release.
Mohammed believes environmental activism in Egypt has to be non-confrontational to work. For example, he thinks the government could do better in managing the country’s resources like food and water but as part of his work he has to be very careful about the way he puts this criticism.
“I want to not be viewed as it's me against them [the government]. That has not worked in Egypt. I want to be viewed that together, we want to solve this specific problem.”
He’s aware people from outside of the country may want to speak up about political, economical, or social issues. But he warns against Egyptians doing it themselves.
“The foreigners who will come to Egypt, they will say a lot of bad things about Egypt, a lot of good things about Egypt, doesn't matter. They're going to come and go.
“For Egyptians, the key thing to remember is you're here to stay, the statements you will say will remain.”
Mohammed also feels there’s no “sense of urgency” yet in Egypt to deal with the climate crisis, despite the fact that it’s vulnerable to extreme heat waves and dust storms.
He fears it “will be a bubble that will pop” once the conference is over.
“Even though we've started to experience climate change impacts, what’s being translated into action on the ground is not tangible,” he said. “We're not feeling it. Much more action is needed. And the problem is only getting worse.”
But some in the industry, like Nadia, who works in sustainable travel and whose name has also been changed for security reasons, believes the responsibility for solutions to the crisis should not be put on developing countries like Egypt.
“I find it a little irritating that activists from across the globe who are from countries that caused this problem and cannot bring their policies in line to decrease emissions, will come and talk to us about how we're trying to achieve ours.”
Rather than criticising Egypt, she wants to see economically advanced and more industrialised countries in North America and Europe doing more. She believes they should be repaying and financially supporting developing countries for “the crisis they’ve created”.
“The climate crisis is not the doing of the Egyptian government or developing countries, it's the doing of the global north.
“I can look at Egypt and say there are multiple [climate] issues it needs to address. But China and the US are the largest polluters and they are not meeting their goals. They're having conversations internally in the US about whether there even is a climate crisis.”
She understands with the world looking at Egypt other issues away from the climate crisis, like politics and human rights, could be brought up and this is something she wants to avoid.
“No matter what the political climate is, the environment isn't going to wait for that. Political rights like expression, association and assembly are key. But this isn't the space to have that conversation. Right now, we need to move on the climate.”
READ MORE
Maryland Democratic Governor-elect Wes Moore and Lieutenant Governor-elect Aruna Miller celebrate during an Election Night party for Maryland Democrats at The Baltimore Marriott Waterfront in Baltimore, Maryland on Nov. 8, 2022. (photo: Eric Lee/Getty)
Democrats in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota now run state government—and environmental organizations see the opportunity for more ambitious and equitable policies.
The states—Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota—have all seen environmental policies stymied by Republican leaders, but now Democrats have more latitude to take action.
In other states, having this “trifecta” of Democratic control has been essential for passing climate and clean energy legislation. But each of the four new members of the club will have their own approaches based on local factors, including whether their legislative majorities are large enough to allow for proposals that may inspire significant blowback.
“It’s fair to say… there was a green wave in the states across the country, a big green wave,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, in a post-election news conference.
And that was a surprise, considering the expectation from many observers that Republicans would benefit from a “red wave.”
Democrats had 14 state trifectas going into the election and Republicans had 23, according to Ballotpedia. The other states were under split control. Democrats picked up four more in Tuesday’s election, and Republicans haven’t yet gained any, but some of the results are still being determined. If Democrat Katie Hobbs is elected governor of Arizona, Republicans would cede their trifecta there, and Democrats would lose their trifectas in Nevada and Oregon if their candidates don’t prevail in tightly contested races for governor.
Having Democrats in charge in additional states becomes especially important if Republicans gain control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, or both, although several unresolved races mean it’s not clear which party will control either chamber. If the GOP is running the House, the Senate or both, President Joe Biden will have a much more difficult time passing climate and energy legislation. It will be up to the states to fill in the gap, as they did during the Trump administration.
Also, the states have a major role to play in spending climate and clean energy program funding from the federal infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Maryland
Democrat Wes Moore—the first Black governor of Maryland and the third elected Black governor in the U.S.—easily defeated Republican Dan Cox to fill the seat being vacated by term-limited Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. Democrats also retained their control of the legislature.
“Under Gov. Wes Moore, we would expect climate legislation to be supported by the administration and signed into law, which would be an affirmative statement about prioritizing climate action at a statewide level. So that would be a big difference,” said Kristen Harbeson, political director of Maryland League of Conservation Voters.
This is in contrast to Hogan, with whom there was always a threat of a veto on climate legislation, she said.
The new administration can empower state regulatory agencies by appointing leadership that prioritizes clean and affordable energy policies, said Emily Scarr, director of Maryland PIRG, the Baltimore-based consumer advocacy group. It would send a clear message that it plans to hold polluters accountable, protect utilities’ consumers and chart transition to clean, renewable electricity throughout the state, she said.
But high prices for gasoline and home heating may make leaders cautious about taking steps, at least right away, that could disrupt energy markets, said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
“The reality check will be energy prices,” he said.
On his wish list is a change to a policy that says the incineration of wood and other biomass counts toward compliance with the state’s renewable energy standards. Such a change would be in line with growing concern about the environmental harm of burning biomass and skepticism about the environmental benefits.
Some state legislators and environmental advocates want to see the new administration make resources available to staff up regulatory agencies such as the Department of the Environment, which recently said it needed nearly 90 new employees to carry out necessary inspections and enforce pollution control measures as required under the law.
“It’s a big department and a big agency, with a lot of responsibility. And so they have to hire people and get clear on their mission,” said Senator Paul Pinsky, a Prince George’s County Democrat, adding that the department needs a leadership committed to its mission.
Massachusetts
Much like Maryland, the shift in Massachusetts was the election of a Democratic governor to go along with a legislature that Democrats already controlled.
Democrat Maura Healey easily won against Republican Geoff Diehl in the race to succeed Charlie Baker, a two-term Republican.
While there was a push for a climate plan by the legislature, Gov. Baker was an obstacle to the most ambitious policies, said Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston. For example, in a landmark climate and clean energy bill Baker signed into law last summer that includes measures on clean energy, energy efficiency and transportation emissions, he pushed back on proposals to allow some municipalities to ban fossil fuels in new buildings.
“That’s the kind of limitation that Governor Baker insisted on that we would expect Healey to be much more progressive on and willing to consider a broader probe to begin to wean the region off natural gas,” said Campbell.
He added that the new governor is the “element that had been missing.” Healey calls for a shift to carbon-free electricity by 2030 and, like all governors, will play a key role in implementing recent federal infrastructure and climate legislation.
The races in Massachusetts were not competitive. Other than the establishment of a new climate czar, there was a lack of specific climate commitments, said Campbell, “so we’re looking forward to really putting flesh on the bones of Governor-elect Healey’s climate commitments very early in her first term.”
Michigan
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, won a second term by defeating Republican Tudor Dixon.
In addition to re-electing Whitmer, voters gave Democrats majorities in the state House and Senate for the first time in decades. But these are narrow majorities. With votes still being counted, the party’s majority in the House could be as small as one seat, and the Senate could be evenly split, with the lieutenant governor, a Democrat, providing the tie-breaking vote.
“The Republican-led legislature has been at war with Gov. Whitmer on a variety of environmental issues,” said Howard Learner, president and executive director of the Environmental Law … Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocacy group that is active throughout the Midwest.
“While not all Democrats agree on everything in Michigan, I think the new, very slim majority Democratic leadership in the state legislature will work more cooperatively with the Democratic governor,” he said.
But it remains to be seen if this is a majority that is capable of passing major legislation, considering that some Democrats may not agree on the best approach to dealing with climate change and encouraging a transition to clean energy.
The re-election of Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel means that the state is unlikely to change its approach in trying to force the closing of Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline. The pipeline runs through an environmentally sensitive area in the straits that connect Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
Nessel has sued the pipeline company to try to force the shutdown. Her Republican opponent, Matthew DePerno, had said he would dismiss the lawsuit.
Minnesota
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, won re-election against Republican Scott Jensen.
Democrats completed their trifecta by retaining control of the state House and gaining control of the state Senate. But their edge in the Senate may be as small as one seat, as results are still being tabulated.
Minnesota had come close to passing major climate and clean energy legislation even with Republicans in control of the Senate, and environmental advocates hope that this shift in power will provide enough of a nudge to finally pass a commitment to get to 100 percent carbon-free electricity.
“I think the important thing is we’re not starting from scratch here,” said Justin Fay, director of public affairs for Fresh Energy, a clean energy advocacy group in St. Paul. He listed examples of previous bills passed in the House and a policy framework released by the Walz administration.
“There actually is a thoughtful, robust and balanced menu of opportunities that are teed up and ready to go,” he said.
But there are several unknowns, including whether legislative Democrats will be united, or close to it, on climate and clean energy, and whether Republicans who were supportive of climate or clean energy policies in the past will still be so when their party no longer controls the agenda.
The Bigger Picture
Four years ago, Democrats had an even more successful Election Day in the states, gaining six trifectas.
The policies that followed in those states—Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, Nevada and New York—helped to cement the idea that Democratic control was a key ingredient for climate and clean energy policy. Each state passed major legislation, either with far-reaching bills or piecemeal approaches to the issues.
For environmental advocates like Learner, this track record is a reason for optimism.
“I think there’s a really enormous opportunity,” he said.
The progress in Illinois the past few years was possible because Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, was elected in 2018 following several years of divided government, he said. Pritzker signed a landmark clean energy bill last year.
Part of Learner’s optimism is that the Democratic governors in several of these trifectas are entering their second terms, which means they have experience and know what to do with the power they have been given.
The fact that advocates are even talking in terms of victories and optimism is notable because this was supposed to be a bad election for Democrats, as the president’s party often does poorly in midterm elections.
Learner said one of his takeaways was that Republicans didn’t run in opposition to climate and clean energy policies to the extent that they did in 2010, a year when Republicans did well at the federal and state level.
He thinks this is a sign that a growing share of voters in both parties are prioritizing action to address climate change.
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.