Chris Hedges's Blog, page 406

Far Right Increasingly Responsible for Mass Violence: Report

On the Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend, U.S. Border Patrol fired tear gas on Central American migrants at the Mexican border. Many of the victims were children, brought with their parents who are fleeing violence in their home countries. The Trump administration views, or at least claims to view, these families as a threat to American safety. However, as a new report from The Washington Post shows, perhaps they should be looking closer to home.

“Over the past decade,” the Post writes, “attackers motivated by right-wing political ideologies have committed dozens of shootings, bombings and other acts of violence, far more than any other category of domestic extremist.”

The trend has only gotten worse. As the Post observes, “while the data show a decades-long drop-off in violence by left-wing groups, violence by white supremacists and other far-right attackers has been on the rise since Barack Obama’s presidency—and has surged since President Trump took office.”

Anti-Semitic attacks in particular have increased, with a 17 percent rise in such hate crimes in 2017, as the FBI found in Hate Crime Statistics 2017, a report released this month.

“We are definitely at an inflection point,” Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, told The Wall Street Journal after the FBI report was released. He continued, “We have now risen to the highest level in about a decade. That is a cause for concern.”

The Post’s analysis corroborates and expands on two earlier reports analyzing data from the Global Terrorism Database: one from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland, which covered from 1970 to 2016, and a 2017 follow-up from Quartz, which also used data from the Global Terrorism Database. The START report observed:

In comparison to the 2000s, there was a sharp decline in the proportion of terrorist attacks carried out by left-wing, environmentalist extremists during the first seven years of the 2010s (from 64% to 12%). At the same time, there was a sharp increase in the proportion of attacks carried out by right-wing extremists (from 6% to 35%) and religious extremists (from 9% to 53%) in the United States.

Quartz found that in 2017 the trend continued: “Out of 65 incidents last year, 37 were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government or xenophobic motivations.”

2018 may be the deadliest year so far. A recent spate of incidents included a shooting in a Kroger supermarket in Kentucky, another in a Pittsburgh synagogue, another in a Florida yoga studio, one in a California bar. “All told,” the Post reports, “researchers say at least 20 people have died this year in suspected right-wing attacks.”

In addition to blaming immigrants for violence, Trump and his supporters frequently claim that left-wing groups are responsible for shootings and other large-scale violence. According to the Post’s research, only one incident meets that criterion, when Tierre Guthrie, an ex-Marine whom the Post describes as sympathetic to black nationalist groups, killed a police officer when being arrested at his home after missing a hearing for a traffic violation. Right-wing, Trump-sympathetic outlets like the Washington Examiner and even mainstream sites like Newsweek questioned whether the shooter’s support for Bernie Sanders and ire against Trump were among the motives for the shooting.

Experts. however, “say right-wing extremists perceive the president as offering them tacit support for their cause.” When, days before the midterm elections, Trump via video accused the Democrats of flooding America with thousands of undocumented immigrants, members of one far-right message board rejoiced. One poster was especially inspired, writing, “I love it. We should be making videos like this.” As The New York Times reported this month, “these far-right communities have entered into a sort of imagined dialogue with the president. They create and disseminate slogans and graphics, and celebrate when they show up in Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed days or weeks later.”

These slogans and graphics have impacts far beyond the corners of the internet where they’re created. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative. They begin to think it’s OK to use violence,” Gary LaFree, criminology chairman at the University of Maryland and founding director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, told the Post.

Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, was even more blunt: “The current political rhetoric is at least enabling, and certainly not discouraging, violence.”

The Trump administration also doesn’t see programs aimed at countering this kind of extremism as a funding priority. It had previously put a hold on Countering Violent Extremism, a $10 million grant program, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, aimed at fighting domestic terrorism. A few grants were finally distributed months later. As NBC News reported in October, “At least four grants were canceled, however, and three recipients confirmed that they had declined the grants, all citing political disagreements with the Trump administration.”

Now, NBC continues, the DHS has no plans to continue funding the program past July 2019.

 

 

 

First Gene-Edited Babies Claimed in China

HONG KONG — A Chinese researcher claims that he helped make the world’s first genetically edited babies — twin girls born this month whose DNA he said he altered with a powerful new tool capable of rewriting the very blueprint of life.

If true, it would be a profound leap of science and ethics.

A U.S. scientist said he took part in the work in China, but this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States because the DNA changes can pass to future generations and it risks harming other genes.

Many mainstream scientists think it’s too unsafe to try, and some denounced the Chinese report as human experimentation.

The researcher, He Jiankui of Shenzhen, said he altered embryos for seven couples during fertility treatments, with one pregnancy resulting thus far. He said his goal was not to cure or prevent an inherited disease, but to try to bestow a trait that few people naturally have — an ability to resist possible future infection with HIV, the AIDS virus.

He said the parents involved declined to be identified or interviewed, and he would not say where they live or where the work was done.

There is no independent confirmation of He’s claim, and it has not been published in a journal, where it would be vetted by other experts. He revealed it Monday in Hong Kong to one of the organizers of an international conference on gene editing that is set to begin Tuesday, and earlier in exclusive interviews with The Associated Press.

“I feel a strong responsibility that it’s not just to make a first, but also make it an example,” He told the AP. “Society will decide what to do next” in terms of allowing or forbidding such science.

Some scientists were astounded to hear of the claim and strongly condemned it.

It’s “unconscionable … an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible,” said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal.

“This is far too premature,” said Dr. Eric Topol, who heads the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California. “We’re dealing with the operating instructions of a human being. It’s a big deal.”

However, one famed geneticist, Harvard University’s George Church, defended attempting gene editing for HIV, which he called “a major and growing public health threat.”

“I think this is justifiable,” Church said of that goal.

In recent years scientists have discovered a relatively easy way to edit genes, the strands of DNA that govern the body. The tool, called CRISPR-cas9, makes it possible to operate on DNA to supply a needed gene or disable one that’s causing problems.

It’s only recently been tried in adults to treat deadly diseases, and the changes are confined to that person. Editing sperm, eggs or embryos is different — the changes can be inherited. In the U.S., it’s not allowed except for lab research. China outlaws human cloning but not specifically gene editing.

He Jiankui (HEH JEE’-an-qway), who goes by “JK,” studied at Rice and Stanford universities in the U.S. before returning to his homeland to open a lab at Southern University of Science and Technology of China in Shenzhen, where he also has two genetics companies.

The U.S. scientist who worked with him on this project after He returned to China was physics and bioengineering professor Michael Deem, who was his adviser at Rice in Houston. Deem also holds what he called “a small stake” in — and is on the scientific advisory boards of — He’s two companies.

The Chinese researcher said he practiced editing mice, monkey and human embryos in the lab for several years and has applied for patents on his methods.

He said he chose embryo gene editing for HIV because these infections are a big problem in China. He sought to disable a gene called CCR5 that forms a protein doorway that allows HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, to enter a cell.

All of the men in the project had HIV and all of the women did not, but the gene editing was not aimed at preventing the small risk of transmission, He said. The fathers had their infections deeply suppressed by standard HIV medicines and there are simple ways to keep them from infecting offspring that do not involve altering genes.

Instead, the appeal was to offer couples affected by HIV a chance to have a child that might be protected from a similar fate.

He recruited couples through a Beijing-based AIDS advocacy group called Baihualin. Its leader, known by the pseudonym “Bai Hua,” told the AP that it’s not uncommon for people with HIV to lose jobs or have trouble getting medical care if their infections are revealed.

Here is how He described the work:

The gene editing occurred during IVF, or lab dish fertilization. First, sperm was “washed” to separate it from semen, the fluid where HIV can lurk. A single sperm was placed into a single egg to create an embryo. Then the gene editing tool was added.

When the embryos were 3 to 5 days old, a few cells were removed and checked for editing. Couples could choose whether to use edited or unedited embryos for pregnancy attempts. In all, 16 of 22 embryos were edited, and 11 embryos were used in six implant attempts before the twin pregnancy was achieved, He said.

Tests suggest that one twin had both copies of the intended gene altered and the other twin had just one altered, with no evidence of harm to other genes, He said. People with one copy of the gene can still get HIV, although some very limited research suggests their health might decline more slowly once they do.

Several scientists reviewed materials that He provided to the AP and said tests so far are insufficient to say the editing worked or to rule out harm.

They also noted evidence that the editing was incomplete and that at least one twin appears to be a patchwork of cells with various changes.

“It’s almost like not editing at all” if only some of certain cells were altered, because HIV infection can still occur, Church said.

Church and Musunuru questioned the decision to allow one of the embryos to be used in a pregnancy attempt, because the Chinese researchers said they knew in advance that both copies of the intended gene had not been altered.

“In that child, there really was almost nothing to be gained in terms of protection against HIV and yet you’re exposing that child to all the unknown safety risks,” Musunuru said.

The use of that embryo suggests that the researchers’ “main emphasis was on testing editing rather than avoiding this disease,” Church said.

Even if editing worked perfectly, people without normal CCR5 genes face higher risks of getting certain other viruses, such as West Nile, and of dying from the flu. Since there are many ways to prevent HIV infection and it’s very treatable if it occurs, those other medical risks are a concern, Musunuru said.

There also are questions about the way He said he proceeded. He gave official notice of his work long after he said he started it — on Nov. 8, on a Chinese registry of clinical trials.

It’s unclear whether participants fully understood the purpose and potential risks and benefits. For example, consent forms called the project an “AIDS vaccine development” program.

The Rice scientist, Deem, said he was present in China when potential participants gave their consent and that he “absolutely” thinks they were able to understand the risks.

Deem said he worked with He on vaccine research at Rice and considers the gene editing similar to a vaccine.

“That might be a layman’s way of describing it,” he said.

Both men are physics experts with no experience running human clinical trials.

The Chinese scientist, He, said he personally made the goals clear and told participants that embryo gene editing has never been tried before and carries risks. He said he also would provide insurance coverage for any children conceived through the project and plans medical follow-up until the children are 18 and longer if they agree once they’re adults.

Further pregnancy attempts are on hold until the safety of this one is analyzed and experts in the field weigh in, but participants were not told in advance that they might not have a chance to try what they signed up for once a “first” was achieved, He acknowledged. Free fertility treatment was part of the deal they were offered.

He sought and received approval for his project from Shenzhen Harmonicare Women’s and Children’s Hospital, which is not one of the four hospitals that He said provided embryos for his research or the pregnancy attempts.

Some staff at some of the other hospitals were kept in the dark about the nature of the research, which He and Deem said was done to keep some participants’ HIV infection from being disclosed.

“We think this is ethical,” said Lin Zhitong, a Harmonicare administrator who heads the ethics panel.

Any medical staff who handled samples that might contain HIV were aware, He said. An embryologist in He’s lab, Qin Jinzhou, confirmed to the AP that he did sperm washing and injected the gene editing tool in some of the pregnancy attempts.

The study participants are not ethicists, He said, but “are as much authorities on what is correct and what is wrong because it’s their life on the line.”

“I believe this is going to help the families and their children,” He said. If it causes unwanted side effects or harm, “I would feel the same pain as they do and it’s going to be my own responsibility.”

___

AP Science Writer Christina Larson, AP videographer Emily Wang and AP translator Fu Ting contributed to this report from Beijing and Shenzhen, China.

___

This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Europe Will Pay Dearly for Rising Temperatures

The continent must brace itself for the big heat: a hotter climate will cost Europe dear if average global temperatures soar by 3°C near the end of the century, when heat extremes could claim an additional 132,000 deaths a year.

Labour productivity in some southern European countries could fall by 10 to 15%. As sea levels rise, there could be a five-fold increase in coastal flood damage, to affect more than 2 million people and wreak economic tolls of €60 billion (US$68 bn) a year.

As extremes of rainfall increase, swollen rivers could expose three times as many people to inland flooding, and the damage from river floods could rise from €5.3m a year to €17.5m.

If, on the other hand, the world keeps the promise it made to itself in Paris in 2015, and contains global warming to 2°C or less by the century’s end, coastal flooding – which already affects 100,000 people and costs €1.25 bn a year – will affect only an estimated 436,000 and total €6 bn a year in annual damage.

Grim appraisal

But right now the world is on course to tip 3°C by the century’s end, and a new study by the European Commission’s joint research centre has made a sombre assessment of the likely costs.

There will be significant shifts in the times at which seeds sprout, flowers bloom and crops ripen, with big changes in soil water: this is going to affect agricultural productivity. Europe’s arid climate zone is expected to double in area.

Demand for energy to heat homes and offices is likely to fall, but any gains will be wiped out by a rapid rise in energy demand to cool cities and towns. Northern Europe can expect to get wetter, but some parts of southern Europe will, increasingly, face drought and water shortages.

Some of the forecasts are not new: researchers have repeatedly examined the impact of climate change on European harvests, and of sea level rise, for instance, on European coastal cities.

Terse summary

The latest report, labelled with the acronym Peseta III, presents a wider picture of change. It has been four years in the making, and is the product of consultation with experts in economics, biology, physics and engineering: its opening abstract says it all in three pithy sentences.

“The study assesses how climate change could affect Europe in eleven impact areas. Under a high warming scenario, several climate impacts show a clear geographical north-south divide. Most of the welfare losses, assessed for six impact areas, would be greatly reduced under a 2°C scenario.”

It attempts to put a crude measurement on the consumer cost to Europe’s economic welfare of various levels of possible climate change, and the headline figure is that 3°C warming could impose losses on the European Union nations of 1.9% of gross domestic product, or €240bn a year.

But this is an understatement “because key climate impacts cannot be quantified,” the researchers say. And once again, losses would be considerably lower if warming was contained to within 2°C.

Some winners

Under a lower warming regime, there could even be some benefits: Eastern Europe in particular could expect to see measurably higher agricultural yields, especially of wheat and maize.

In southern Europe, which will be both drier and warmer, yields are expected to decline. Irrigation may not be the answer: the harvest from irrigated fields is likely to start showing a decline by the mid-2030s.

By 2050, crop prices are likely to be depressed by the impacts of climate change. In effect, farmers could expect lower output, and on top of that, lower incomes per unit of output.

And these calculations do not include the direct impact of weather extremes – the heatwaves that shrivel seedlings, the hailstorms and high winds that damage blossom and so on – that are likely to be amplified by overall global warming.

“Under a high warming scenario, several climate impacts show a clear geographical north-south divide. Most of the welfare losses … would be greatly reduced under a 2°C scenario.”

Transport, too, will be at the mercy of ever more intense and more frequent extremes of weather. By the century’s end, 200 airports and 850 seaports – large and small – could be affected by flooding from either rising sea levels or heavier downpours.

And the Mediterranean climate zone – with its unique mix of habitat, ground cover, biodiversity and crops – would become increasingly vulnerable to droughts, fires, pests and invasive alien species.

Labour productivity will fall, especially in the south, and in some places employers might have to plan to shift some work to the cooler night, with the additional costs of chronic fatigue, anxiety and depression associated with night work.

At 3°C, heat extremes could lead to additional deaths per year up to 132,000. But even at 2°C this figure could soar to 58,000 extra deaths per year.

5 Facts That Privileged Americans Don’t Want Us to Know

Many of us are ill-informed about certain critical economic and social issues. The following facts should have been reported by the mainstream media, but unfortunately most of that media is controlled by the very people who have reason to hide the facts.

Tax Haven Cheating Is Much Costlier Than the Annual Safety Net—But the IRS Keeps Getting Cut 

Offshore hoarding of private American wealth is estimated to be $3.3 trillion (4% of the U.S.’ $82 trillion financial wealth).

The safety net costs about $400 billion per year, or, including Medicaid, about $900 billion per year.

Taking on the tax cheaters seems like an obvious response, instead of cutting the safety net. But the IRS budget itself has been steadily cut. Amazingly, and perversely, the Internal Revenue Service, which could be recovering much of our hidden money, has seen its staff and budget slashed 14 to 18 percent since the recession.

Our Own Country Is the World’s Second Biggest Tax Haven 

While the privileged American tax cheaters are taking money from their own country, they’re not shy about taking from the rest of the world. According to the Financial Secrecy Index of the Tax Justice Network, the U.S. is second only to Switzerland as a tax haven. Their report states: “Financial secrecy provided by the U.S. has caused untold harm to the ordinary citizens of foreign countries, whose elites have used the United States as a bolt-hole for looted wealth.”

Record Low Unemployment? Yes, Because One Hour of Work Counts as Employed 

Part of that “booming” economy is a low unemployment rate. As noted recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases the official unemployment rate on employees “who did any work for pay or profit” during the week being surveyed. That includes part-time workers who are employed for just one hour a week.

The unemployment rate also fails to include those who have given up looking for work—4 percent more Americans than in the year 2000.

We’re Gradually Giving Away Our Country’s Wealth to the Children of the Rich 

It’s not a Death Tax, it’s a Deadbeat Tax.

Anywhere from 35 percent to 55 percent of U.S. household wealth is inherited. It’s going to get worse. A Boston College study estimated that $59 trillion will be transferred from American estates by 2061. The study calls it “the greatest wealth transfer in U.S. history.” That’s almost as much as the total financial wealth in the U.S. today. But, as Robert Reich notes, in 2014 only 1.4 out of every 1,000 estates owed any estate tax. So most of the money to be passed down from Baby Boomers will be going to kids who never earned any of it and won’t have to pay any taxes on it.

One might argue that the loss of all this tax revenue is a good thing, because then philanthropists will step up and fund the needs of society. Not much chance of that. The super-rich have little incentive to provide housing or education or infrastructure or clean water to poor neighborhoods. Here’s their incentive: Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs). These “philanthropic” funds allow big tax writeoffs, and the “donated” money can be invested and reinvested with little of it going to real causes. The report “Gilded Giving” by Inequality.org states that “this charitable revenue can be warehoused, sitting for years or decades after a charitable deduction has been taken, before any significant payout is made to public nonprofits.”

As We Keep Shooting Each Other, Our Leaders Keep Cutting Mental Health Care 

Why should privileged Americans want to avoid this issue? Because they’re not about to make a financial commitment to the root cause of most of the violence in our country, which is the overwhelming stress and suffering brought on by deprivation in the richest nation in the world. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, anxiety affects nearly one-third of both adolescents and adults.

But instead of therapy, we use drugs to treat patients with mental problems, and as a result, pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars at the expense of incapacitated Americans. Incredibly, over 96 percent of “last-resort” mental health hospital beds have been eliminated in the past sixty years. More incredibly, the 2019 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services includes a 21 percent decrease from the 2017 level.

Most incredible of all is the hypocrisy accompanying this disdain for the needs of American adults and children. As when Donald Trump says, “To every parent, teacher and child who is hurting so badly, we are here for you whatever you need, whatever we can do to ease your pain.”

Cyber Monday Is Just Another Jeff Bezos Racket

“Cyber Monday” is coming up — get out there and buy stuff!

You don’t actually have to “get out there” anywhere, for this gimmicky shop-shop-shop day lures us to consume without leaving home, or even getting out of bed. Concocted by Amazon, the online marketing monopolist, Cyber Monday is a knock-off of Black Friday — just another ploy by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to siphon sales from real stores.

Seems innocent enough, but behind Amazon’s online convenience and discounted prices is a predatory business model based on exploitation of workers, bullying of suppliers, dodging of taxes, and use of crude anti-competitive force against America’s Main Street businesses.

A clue into Amazon’s ethics came when Bezos instructed his staff to get ever-cheaper prices from small-business suppliers by stalking them “the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle.”

John Crandall, who owns Old Town Bike Shop in Colorado Springs, is one who’s under attack. He offers fair prices, provides good jobs, pays rent and taxes, and lives in and supports the community.

But he’s noticed that more and more shoppers come in to try out bikes and get advice, yet not buy anything. Instead, their smartphones scan the barcode of the bike they want, then they go online to purchase it from Amazon — cheaper than Crandall’s wholesale price.

You see, the cheetah is a multibillion-dollar-a-year beast that can sell that bike at a loss, then make up the loss on sales of the thousands of other products it peddles.

This amounts to corporate murder of small business. It’s illegal, but Amazon is doing it every day in practically every community.

So, on this Cyber Monday, let’s pledge to buy from local businesses that support our communities.

There’s One Thing We Can Do to Break Saudi Arabia’s Hold Over the U.S.

Trump has openly and consistently given Saudi control of oil prices as the reason for which he doesn’t want to sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman for having dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered and then dismembered.

Trump is, as usual, wildly exaggerating. Saudi Arabia produces perhaps 11% of the oil pumped daily in the world. It cannot dictate prices, since if it reduces production, other countries– Iran, Russia, Kuwait and others– would likely just step in to replace lost Saudi production. Only if Saudi Arabia can convince the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) jointly to reduce production across the board can Riyadh hope to have a big impact on the price of oil. Such concerted efforts at dictating to the oil markets are rare and are usually born of a moment of contentious politics.

To the extent, however, that Saudi Arabia gains influence over the White House by virtue of its commanding position in the oil markets, there is one thing we can do to break that hold.

Those of us who need a car and can’t easily take public transit to get to work or go shopping for groceries should just get an electric car. Volvo and BMW are going in for electric cars in a big way over the next couple of years. GM already has the Bolt, which sells for $35,000 ($28,500 after Federal tax rebate) and Nissan’s Leaf is a hit. The big news, however, is that by 2021 the BEV (fully electric) vehicle market is going to be revolutionized with a vast range of new models that will typically get over 200 miles to the charge and which will be fast, sleek and stylish, plus many will be much more affordable than the luxury vehicles such as the Tesla. Sales will skyrocket over the next 3 years.

The European Environmental Agency has just put out a study proving that electric vehicles really do substantially reduce carbon emissions:

“The report confirms that the greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles, with the current EU energy mix and over the entire vehicle life cycle, are about 17-30 % lower than the emissions of petrol [gasoline] and diesel cars. However, as the carbon intensity of the EU energy mix is projected to decrease, the life-cycle emissions of a typical electric vehicle could be cut by at least 73 % by 2050.

For local air quality, electric vehicles also offer clear benefits, mainly due to zero exhaust emissions at street level. However, even electric vehicles emit particulate matter from road, tyre and break wear, the report reminds. Shifting to electric vehicles could also reduce noise pollution, especially in cities where speeds are generally low and traffic often stands still.”

I personally hate those popular magazine articles arguing that EVs could be dirty depending on the electricity mix in your state. All the studies show that regardless of state, EVs are always less polluting than internal combustion vehicles. (And gasoline-powered vehicles are *increasing* in their carbon dioxide pollution over time). Moreover, in Michigan, a relatively dirty energy state, the proportion of coal in the mix has fallen in the past few years from 65% to only 35%, as natural gas and wind have proven cheaper. So by that logic EVs in Michigan are suddenly substantially less polluting than they were in 2010. Plus, we aren’t prisoners of our state electricity mix. I have solar panels on my house, and when I had my Chevy Volt, I just fueled it straight from the sun (I don’t work bankers’ hours). The EEA report ignores the impact of residential PV *today* and focuses on the utility-scale grid, which will take longer to decarbonize.

As for the argument that *making* the electric car is a high-carbon activity, that is true but it just needn’t be the case. You can fuel automobile manufacturing plants with solar and wind energy, and metal work can be done more efficiently than is typically the case today. Renault has a plant in Tangiers, Morocco, that it claims is virtually net carbon zero; it is at the least much less carbon-intensive than the run of such plants. Plus the EEA report found that even with manufacturing and even with our current dirty grid, EVs are as much as a third less polluting than gasoline cars.

All this matters for the health of the earth’s climate and for the health of our lungs and bloodstreams. But electric vehicles have another huge impact on the global system of political power/ energy. They reduce the power of Middle East oil dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. All have played a role in blocking democratic movements in the region since 2011, ensconcing reactionary regimes that make a mockery of human rights and oppress tens of millions of people, as in Egypt and Syria. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were hand in glove with Russian intelligence in helping put Trump into office in the United States. Folks, these oil dictatorships are up in your underwear.

But EVs are poised in the 2020s to take the world by storm, and will like send oil markets plummeting (I wouldn’t keep Exxon-Mobil and BP in my retirement portfolio if I were you.

Bin Salman seems likely to get away with using a bone saw on a Washington Post columnist, just because he has black gold beneath his feet. But it is about to turn into black sludge, useful mainly in plastics and fertilizer, and far less pricey, cutting Saudi and UAE political power down to size. They had better have invested well, since I’d give their run at most another 15 years. The question is whether American democracy, and the planet, can afford a decade and a half more of this.

——

U.S. Border Patrol Fires Tear Gas at Migrants, Some Children, at Mexico Border

After Central American migrants approached the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday to call attention to awful shelter conditions and request asylum, U.S. Border Patrol agents reportedly fired tear gas into Mexico, forcing parents with toddlers to flee.

“Children were screaming and coughing in the mayhem,” the Associated Press reported. “On the U.S. side of the fence, shoppers streamed in and out of an outlet mall.”

US Border Patrol has just launched tear gas into Mexico. Breeze carrying it hundreds of yards. Parents running away with choking toddlers. #migrantcaravan

— Chris Sherman (@chrisshermanAP) November 25, 2018

Ana Zuniga, 23, from Honduras cradled 3-year old daughter with red burning eyes. “We ran but when you run the smoke smothers you more.” Said US agents began launching gas when migrants opened small hole in concertina wire at bottom of Tijuana River. She didn’t see anyone get thru

— Chris Sherman (@chrisshermanAP) November 25, 2018

Strong breeze carried US-launched teargas deeper into Mexico. Migrants ran for hundreds of yards before escaping the cloud. #migrantcaravan

— Chris Sherman (@chrisshermanAP) November 25, 2018

Earlier on Sunday, U.S. authorities closed off both directions of the San Ysidro port of entry, which is one of the largest border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico.

“Imagine having tear gas launched at you after escaping gang violence/poverty while carrying your child,” Juan Escalante, a columnist at the Huffington Post, wrote on Twitter.

Important context for those who haven't been following:
-a group of caravan members held a march to the port today, protesting the conditions in shelters and demanding asylum in US/to speak with a rep of US gov't.
-CBP shut down the port; no one can cross on either side. https://t.co/Wqk2glLKRi

— Dara Lind (@DLind) November 25, 2018

The demonstrations by Central American asylum seekers came amid reports that the Trump administration is looking to cut a deal with the newly-elected Mexican government to keep migrants out of the U.S. until their asylum claims are fully processed.

While U.S. President Donald Trump took to Twitter late Saturday to claim that asylum seekers will now be forced to stay in Mexico until their cases are processed, the incoming Mexican government officials said publicly that no such agreement has been reached.

Bernie Sanders: The U.S. Needs to Be Aggressive Toward the Fossil Fuel Industry

In an interview on CBS‘s “Face the Nation” shortly after the Trump administration attempted to bury a devastating report on the climate crisis, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said it is more important than ever to unite the public around ambitious solutions to human-caused climate change as the White House actively works with the fossil fuel industry to make it worse.

“It is very clear that we have got to bring our people together to address this terribly important issue. And it is amazing to me that we have an administration right now that still considers climate change to be a hoax,” Sanders said. “We have got to rally the American people.”

“The scientific community has made it 100 percent clear… this is a major crisis facing this country and our planet, and we have got to be bold and aggressive in standing up to the greed of the fossil fuel industry, who are more concerned about short-term profits than the planet we are leaving our kids and our grandchildren,” Sanders concluded.

.@SenSanders talks climate change: It is very clear that we have got to bring our people together to address this terribly important issue. And it is amazing to me that we have an administration right now that still considers our climate change to be a hoax. pic.twitter.com/c3oUOCe3QF

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) November 25, 2018

In an effort to build grassroots support for bold climate action as the corporate media fails to give the planetary emergency the attention it so badly needs, Sanders early next month is hosting a town hall titled “Solving Our Climate Crisis” in partnership with independent progressive media outlets.

The event will feature prominent environmentalists and scientists who are dedicated to “addressing the global threat of climate change and exploring solutions that can protect the planet from devastation and create tens of millions of good-paying jobs.”

“We need millions of people all over this country to stand up and demand fundamental changes in our energy policy in order to protect our kids and our grandchildren and the planet,” Sanders told the Huffington Post last week. “The good news is the American people are beginning to stand up and fight back.”

Among those fighting back are youth climate leaders and their backers in Congress. As Common Dreams reported, the Sunrise Movement has staged sit-ins at the offices of Democratic leaders to demand that they back a Green New Deal.

Additionally, environmentalists and progressive lawmakers have pushed Democrats—who will control the House in the next Congress—to form a Green New Deal Select Committee and make Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the chair.

According to the Sunrise Movement, 12 House Democrats have expressed their support for a Green New Deal Select Committee. Click here to contact your representatives if they are not on the list.

Ukraine Says Russia Fired on Ships in Black Sea

MOSCOW—The Ukrainian navy said Sunday that Russia’s coast guard opened fire on Ukrainian vessels in the Black Sea following a tense standoff off the coast of the Crimean Peninsula, wounding two crew members.

Russia didn’t immediately comment on the claims. Ukraine’s navy said that two of its vessels were struck and that Russian coast guard crews boarded them and a tugboat and seized them.

There have been growing tensions between Ukraine and Russia, which annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has steadily worked to increase its zone of control around the peninsula.

Earlier Sunday, Russia and Ukraine traded accusations over another incident involving the same three vessels, prompting Moscow to block passage through the Kerch Strait.

The Ukrainian vessels apparently wanted to travel through the strait to other ports in Ukraine, and Ukrainian authorities said they had given advance notice to the Russians.

The tensions began Sunday morning. Russia’s coast guard said that the three Ukrainian vessels made an unauthorized crossing through Russian territorial waters, while Ukraine alleged that one of its boats was rammed by a Russian coast guard vessel.

The Kerch Strait is a narrow body of water nestled between Crimea and the Russian mainland.

The incident began after the Ukrainian navy claimed a Russian coast guard vessel rammed one of its tugboats, which was traveling with two Ukrainian navy artillery boats from Odessa on the Black Sea to Mariupol in the Sea of Azov, via the Kerch Strait.

“Russian coast guard vessels … carried out openly aggressive actions against Ukrainian navy ships,” the Ukrainian navy statement said. It said a Russian coast guard ship damaged the tugboat’s engine, hull, side railing and a lifeboat.

The statement added that Russia had been informed in advance about the planned journey.

Russia then blocked off the strait.

The Kerch Strait is the only passage into the Sea of Azov beyond it. The strait is crossed by the recently completed Kerch Bridge, connecting Crimea to Russia. Transit under the bridge has been blocked by a tanker ship, and dozens of cargo ships awaiting passage are stuck.

Russia has not given any indication of how long it will keep the strait blocked off, but a long-term closure to civilian traffic would amount to an economic blockade of Ukrainian cities on the Azov coast. And Russia’s Black Sea Fleet greatly outmatches the Ukrainian navy.

Ukrainian cities on the Sea of Azov include strategically vital centers such as Mariupol — the closest government-controlled city to Donetsk and Luhansk, the breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine controlled by Russia-backed separatists.

Russia’s Federal Security Service, known as the FSB, told Russian news agencies Sunday after the first incident that the Ukrainian ships held their course and violated Russian territorial waters. The FSB accused the Ukrainian navy of staging a provocation against Russia.

“Their goal is clear,” an FSB statement said — “to create a conflict situation in the region.” The statement didn’t mention ramming a Ukrainian tugboat.

Though a 2003 treaty designates the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov as shared territorial waters, Russia has been asserting greater control over the passage since 2015.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said in an earlier statement that Russia’s actions were a violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, and pledged to “promptly inform our partners about Russia’s aggressive actions.”

“Such actions pose a threat to the security of all states in the Black Sea region,” the statement said, “and therefore require a clear response from the international community.”

Dmitry Kiselyov, a commentator on the state-controlled Rossiya channel, told viewers of his Sunday evening news program that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko — encouraged by the U.S. — is looking to pick a fight with Russia in the Black Sea.

The talk show host also said that the U.S. talked Poroshenko into staging a provocation against Russia as a means to disrupt the upcoming meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at this week’s Group of 20 summit in Argentina.

“What is happening now at the (Kerch) bridge threatens to turn into a very unpleasant story,” Kiselyov warned.

___

Yuras Karmanau contributed to this report from Minsk, Belarus.

Catastrophic Northern California Fire Is Finally Contained

LOS ANGELES — A massive wildfire that killed dozens of people and destroyed thousands of homes in Northern California has been fully contained after burning for more than two weeks, authorities said Sunday.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said the Camp fire had been surrounded by firefighters after several days of rain in the Paradise area.

The nation’s deadliest wildfire in a century killed at least 85 people, and 249 are on a list of those unaccounted for. The number of missing dropped in recent days as officials confirmed that more people were alive.

Crews continued sifting through ash and debris for human remains.

The fire began Nov. 8 in the parched Sierra Nevada foothills and quickly spread across 240 square miles (620 square kilometers), destroying most of Paradise in a day.

Nearly 19,000 buildings, most of them homes, are gone.

The firefight got a boost last week from the first significant winter storm to hit California. It dropped an estimated 7 inches (18 centimeters) of rain over the burn area over a three-day period without causing significant mudslides, said Hannah Chandler-Cooley of the National Weather Service.

In Southern California, more residents returned to areas evacuated in a destructive fire as crews repaired power, telephone and gas utilities.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials said they were in the last phase of repopulating Malibu and unincorporated areas of the county. At the height of the fire, 250,000 fled their homes.

Three people died, and 1,643 buildings, most of them homes, were destroyed, officials said.