16 Mar 2017

Business School International MSc Scholarship at University of Hull 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 10th July 2017 for entry in September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): University of Hull, UK
About the Award: Six scholarships of £5,000 are available for new MSc students (non-University of Hull graduates) and these are awarded on the basis of academic excellence. This scholarship only covers a part of the full tuition fee and additionally does not cover living or travel costs. These scholarships are valid only for the academic year commencing September 2017. Please note that this scholarship does not cover the cost of living or travel.
Type: MSc 
Selection CriteriaAcademic Excellence
Eligibility: In order to be considered for the MSc, applicants must
  • have applied and received confirmation of an offer to study before applying for this scholarship and must write their admissions application code on the scholarship application for consideration
  • be able to commence their studies in September 2017
  • have not been awarded any other scholarship or sponsorship
  • be considered as international students for tuition fee purposes
Number of Scholarships: Six (6) MSc Scholarships
Value of Scholarship: The MSc scholarship only covers a part -£5,000  – of the full tuition fee and does not cover living or travel costs.
Duration of Scholarship: For the normal period of one year
How to Apply: Applicants for all of the above scholarships must submit the following
  • this completed application form (with their application code entered)
  • a copy of their offer letter
  • proof of a minimum overall 2:1 honours Bachelors degree pass or equivalent
  • one good academic reference
  • an essay of no more than 500 words on why you wish to study at Hull University Business School on the MSc programme for which you have applied and – focusing on your academic achievements, any positions of responsibility you have held or any recognition you have received for excellent performance at your previous institution –  why you should be considered for a scholarship.
(Please note that scholarship applications submitted without all requested documentation will not be considered)
Visit scholarship webpage for application details
Scholarship Provider: University of Hull, UK

International Scholarships for Undergraduate Students at University of Kent 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 31st May 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Nationals of any country
To be taken at (country): University of Kent, UK
Eligible Field of Study: courses offered by the university
About Scholarship: The University has a long tradition of welcoming international students and is pleased to offer a number of scholarships for entry at undergraduate level. The scholarships are worth £5000 per year of study at the University of Kent, towards the cost of tuition fees and are offered to nationals of any country paying overseas fees.
Type: Bachelors degree
Eligibility: To be eligible for consideration for a scholarship, all of the conditions below must have been satisfied:
  • an application must have been made for an undergraduate degree course at the University of Kent;
  • the applicant must have received an offer of a place (conditional or unconditional) on a degree course;
  • the University must have received confirmation of the applicant’s firm acceptance of the offer by the deadline date
    • Students who choose Kent as their insurance place will not be eligible for the Scholarship.
Please note that current students are not eligible to apply for the International Scholarship.  This scholarship is only open to new students, who satisfy the above criteria.
Selection Criteria: Scholarships will be awarded based on the information provided on your UCAS form, together with the clear thinking and motivation shown in the submitted essay.
Number of Scholarships: not specified
Value of Scholarship: The scholarships are worth £5000 per year of study at the University of Kent, towards the cost of tuition fees
Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study
How to Apply: Applications for the International Scholarship must be made via your applicant portal.  Once logged in, click on My Scholarships and Bursaries.  You will then see a list of scholarships that you may be eligible to apply for.  You will be able to apply for the International Scholarship once you have received an offer.  Click on Apply and follow the steps to submit your application.
As part of your application you will need to upload an essay, which should be submitted as either a Word or PDF document. For this essay, please write no more than 750 words on a topic about which you are passionate and which is relevant to your selected degree programme.
Scholarship Provider: University of Kent, UK
Important Notes: The University of Kent reserves the right not to allocate the awards if the selection panel identifies no suitable candidates. The International Scholarship is subject to full terms and conditions which will be provided to successful candidates at the point of award.
If you have any questions regarding the International Scholarships, then please contact international[at]kent.ac.uk.

EDSF Scholarship for International Students in Computer Science & Engineering and Graphic & Media Communications 2017

Application Deadline: 1st May, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): an accredited college or university anywhere in the world
Eligible Field of Study: The career choices are very broad and include, but are not limited to, Computer Science & Engineering (for example: Web master/designer, software development, database managers, materials engineer, applications specialist, IT designer, Chief Technology Officer) and Graphic & Media Communications (for example: graphic designer, art directors, illustrator, color scientist, print production, prepress imaging specialist, workflow specialist, document preparation, production and/or document distribution, content management, e-commerce; imaging science, printing, Web authoring, electronic publishing, archiving, security), and those students interested in Business (sales and marketing, including trade shows, customer service, project or product development/ management).
About Scholarship: The Electronic Document Scholarship Foundation – EDSF scholarship program was initiated in 1999 to recognize and support the next generation of professionals for the Document Management and Graphic Communication industry. EDSF scholarships are awarded to full-time students who are committed to pursuing a career in the Document Management and Graphic Communications marketplace.
Offered Since: 1999
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: To be eligible for an EDSF scholarship, students must have the following:
  • An interest in pursuing a career within the Document Management and Graphic Communication industry
  • Minimum 3.0 cumulative GPA on a 4.0 scale
  • Full-time student attending an accredited college or university anywhere in the world as of the Fall 2017 semester
  • International students may apply
Selection Criteria: Scholarships are based on a combination of the following: scholastic achievement, application essay, participation in school activities, community service, honors and organizational affiliations, education objectives and academic and professional recommendations. Depending on specific sponsor criteria, other elements may be considered, such as geographic location, college preference, organization and presentation.
Number of Scholarships: EDSF awards a minimum of 40 scholarships a year.
Value of Scholarship: $1000 to $5,000 USD
Duration of Scholarship: Onetime financial support
How to Apply: : Click here
The Scholarship Application has six sections. Once you have completed all sections of the application, paper clip your application together and follow the mailing instructions from the list below.
Award Provider: Electronic Document Scholarship Foundation – EDSF

University of Auckland Undergraduate and Postgraduate International Scholarships 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st May 2017
Offered annually?  Bi-annually
Eligible Countries: international
To be taken at (country): Newzealand
About the Award: The main purpose of the Scholarships is to attract new international students of high calibre to enrol in undergraduate and postgraduate taught study of one year or more at the University of Auckland.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: PGDip or Masters or undergraduate degrees
Eligibility: New full-fee paying international students undertaking a PGDip or Masters (taught) of 120 points or more or an undergraduate degree (with overseas secondary or post-secondary qualifications)
Number of Awardees: Up to 14
Value of Scholarship: Tuition fee waiver. Up to $10,000 for postgraduate study and up to $5,000 for undergraduate study
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Please read the regulations carefully to be sure you are eligible before you apply.  Then click on the blue “Apply here” button and complete the online application form.
Award Provider: University of Auckland

‘Web of Weirdness’: US and Israeli Codependent Relationship is Not Just about Money

Ramzy Baroud

“We must look back twenty-five years to realize how far Israel has fallen in world support,” wrote famed Jewish scholar, Harvard sociologist, Nathan Glazer in 1976.
In the last forty years since Glazer wrote his piece, which was uncovered and transmitted by Philip Weiss, Israel’s global support has fallen much further. The country that once appealed to both United States’ capitalism and the Soviet Union’s socialism is now militarily powerful but, otherwise, politically isolated on the international stage.
The misleading perception that Israel is a ‘beacon of light’ among nations has worn off. Worse, the last time this phrase was uttered at an international level, it was made by Geert Wilders, a Dutch populist right-wing politician perceived by many to be a racist and an Islamophobe.
Yet, the more isolated Israel became, the more its dependency on the United States grew.
“Supporting Israel is not in America’s interests,” Weiss wrote. “In fact, Israel is a strategic liability for the US. That makes American Jewish influence the ultimate pillar of Israel’s survival.”
Although Zionists often speak of a historical bond between the US and the Jewish people, nothing could be further from the truth.
On May 13, 1939, a boat carrying hundreds of German Jews was not allowed to reach American shores and was eventually sent back to Europe.
That was not a foreign policy fluke. Three months earlier, in February 1939, members of Congress rejected a bill that would allow 20,000 German Jewish children to come to the US to escape the war and possible extermination at the hands of the Nazis.
Not only did Congress shoot it down but the public had no interest in the matter either, as allowing Jews into the US was quite unpopular at the time.
Fast forward nearly eight decades, things have changed in name only.
While most American Jews continue to support Israel, they are opposed to the administration of Donald Trump, which they rightly perceive to be dangerous and hostile to all minorities, Jewish included.
However, Israel does not seem to have much qualms with the new administration. On the contrary, the most ardent Israeli Zionists are particularly pleased by Trump’s clique of reviled politicians.
Mere days after Trump won the US Presidential election, American Zionists moved quickly to ensure Israeli interests were fully guarded by the new administration.
The Zionist Organization of America wasted no time, either, by fraternizing with individuals accused of having anti-Jewish agendas. ZOA’s annual gala on November 20 hosted none other than Steve Bannon, a leader in the so-called ‘alt-right’, otherwise known as white supremacy in the US.
Under his leadership, Breitbart, seen as a major platform for the alt-right, fueled anti-Semitism (needless to say, racism of all shades), argued Alex Amend and Jonathan Morgan in AlterNet.
Watching top Israeli officials and leaders of the Jewish community in the United States hosting – ever so enthusiastically – Bannon at ZOA’s annual gala appeared perplexing to some.
But Bannon’s ties with Zionists go back to well before the rather surprising Trump election victory.
In an article entitled: “Steve Bannon’s web of weirdness: Meet the bizarre billionaires behind the president-elect’s chief strategist,” Heather Digby Patron named a few of these ‘bizarre billionaires’.
They included, Sheldon Adelson, a right-wing billionaire with a gambling empire, who is ‘singularly focused on the state of Israel.’
Adelson’s relationship with Bannon (and Trump) has well preceded Trump’s victory, and seemed to take little notice of the fact that Bannon and his ilk were viewed by many American Jews as frightening, racist, anti-Semites with a menacing agenda.
Adelson, however, cares little for the true racists. His obsession to shield Israel’s militant Zionist agenda trumped all other seemingly little irritants.
But the gambling mogul is not the exception among powerful Zionists in the US, and, despite official Israeli rhetoric, Israel does not make political decisions based on the collective good of the Jewish people.
Writing in ‘Mondoweiss’, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network explained: “From Russian Tzars to the Nazis to Mussolini to the colonial British Empire to the Christian Right – Christian Zionists; (The Zionists’) embracing of Trump and renowned reactionary political strategist, Steve Bannon, is no exception.”
Israeli commentator Gideon Levy agrees.
In an article published by ‘Haaretz’ on November 21, Levy wrote, “When friendship for Israel is judged solely on the basis of support for the Occupation, Israel has no friends other than racists and nationalists.”
Thus, it is no surprise that Adelson is funding a massively rich campaign and lavish conferences to combat the influence of the civil society-powered Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), while plotting against Palestinians using the same American elements that consider the word ‘Jew’ a swear word in their own social lexicon.
By putting Israel and Zionism first, these rich individuals, powerful lobby groups, hundreds of think- tanks, thousands of networks across the country and their allies among the religious right, are now the main wheelers and dealers in any matter concerning US foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel’s political and security interests.
With no empirical evidence, however, Israel still insists on linking American interests to US support of Israel.
Speaking in the White House on February 15 at a joint press conference with President Trump, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cordially thanked Trump for his hospitality, then uttered these words: “Israel has no better ally than the United States. And I want to assure you, the United States has no better ally than Israel.”
But it was only half true. The US has indeed been a stalwart supporter of Israel, offering it over $3.1 billion in financial assistance each year over the last a few decades, an amount that dramatically increased under President Barack Obama to $3.8 billion. Coupled with hundreds of millions more in all kinds of financial, military assistance and ‘loans’ that were mostly unaccounted for.
The cost of Israel is not only financial, but strategic as well.
Since World War II, the US has vied to achieve two main foreign policy objectives in that part of the world: control the region and its resources and prop up its allies, while maintaining a degree of ‘stability’ so that the US is able to conduct its business unhindered.
Nevertheless, Israel remained on the war path. Wars that Israel could not fight on its own, required American intervention on Israel’s behalf as was the case in Iraq. The outcome was disastrous for US foreign policy. Even hardened military men began to notice the destructive path their country had chosen in order to defend Israel.
In March 2010, General David Petraeus, then Head of the US Central Command told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a testimony that Israel had become a liability for the US and that it has become a challenge to the ‘security and stability’, which his country aimed to achieve.
Although recent polls have shown that younger Americans – especially among Democratic party supporters and young Jewish Americans – are losing their enthusiasm for Israel and its Zionist ideology – the battle for the US to reclaim its foreign policy and a sense of morality regarding Palestine and the Middle East is likely to be long and arduous.

North Korea: the Cyberwar of All Against All

John Feffer

The political theorist Thomas Hobbes warned in the 17th century that without the modern state and its sovereign control of territory, humanity would slip back into a state of nature in which violence was uncontrolled and ever-present. “A war of all against all” would break out, he wrote, in which neighbor would turn against neighbor. States would continue to fight one another, but a measure of stability would reign at the level of society.
Today, without any international authority to regulate cyberspace, a war of all against all has indeed broken out. Each day there are new headlines about a hacking scandal, a cyberattack against a bank or government institution, or even more serious offensive actions.
The United States pioneered this kind of warfare when, during the administration of George W. Bush, it inserted malware into the Iranian nuclear complex that destroyed centrifuges and set back the program. More recently, the United States was on the receiving end of cyberwarfare when hackers, probably at the behest of the Russian government, stole material from the Democratic Party, arranged for its release prior to the 2016 presidential elections, and influenced the outcome in favor of Donald Trump.
The latest revelations of cyberware, however, involve North Korea. The New York Times published an article on March 4 claiming that at least some of the many mishaps and failures associated with North Korea’s missile program were the result of a secret U.S. program to thwart launches through electronic means.
This was not, in fact, the first admission that the United States had targeted North Korea through cyberspace. In late 2014, North Korea stood accused of hacking into Sony Pictures to discredit the film company around the time of its release of The Interview, which mocked Kim Jong Un. At the same time, however, came the revelation that the United States had been hacking into North Korea as early as 2010 and had installed malware that enabled tracking of some of North Korea’s activities.
As I wrote at the time, “The Sony hack has been held up as an example of North Korea’s specialty: asymmetrical warfare. It usually relies on the weapons of the weak against strong adversaries like the United States. But there was a dangerous symmetry lurking in the cyberworld all along. Spyware, it seems, is everywhere.”
The latest information about U.S. attempts to disrupt North Korea’s nuclear program carries with it several very important implications.
First, the Obama administration launched the initiative because it recognized that traditional missile defense was ineffectual. “Flight tests of interceptors based in Alaska and California had an overall failure rate of 56 percent, under near-perfect conditions,” The New York Times noted. “Privately, many experts warned the system would fare worse in real combat.”
Second, the cyberwarfare against North Korea has also basically failed. Despite the numerous failed tests, Pyongyang managed to put together a series of successful launches over the last year, including three medium-range rockets.
Third, cyberspace has become an increasingly dangerous place. Countries have developed the capacity not only to disrupt military operations but also to sabotage civilian infrastructure and paralyze an economy, as South Korea discovered in 2013 when an attack brought down several banks and broadcasters. This kind of warfare doesn’t have any international rules of engagement, like the Geneva Conventions or what the United Nations has developed over the years.
Although Trump as candidate promised a new policy toward North Korea, his administration has so far responded to North Korea’s nuclear program with more of the same. It has said that all options are on the table. It is moving forward with deployment of the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. It has sent reassurances of support to Tokyo and Seoul. It is considering more sanctions and as well as placing North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is waiting for China to do something.
What Trump hasn’t done, however, is learn any lessons from the previous administration’s cyberwarfare experiment. Missile defense doesn’t work. The insertion of malware is only a temporary fix. The Obama administration at least showed that it could learn from its own failures by translating these lessons into a nuclear deal with Iran that has actually dealt with a potential proliferation threat through international cooperation.
It’s time for the United States to apply the same lessons to North Korea. Negotiations and verifiable agreements are far more effective than threats and efforts at disruption.
And before cyberattacks truly spill out of control and the international community descends into a war of all against all, Washington should sit down with other countries to hammer out some rules of conduct. Otherwise, North Korea’s nuclear program will be the least of our problems.

Asteroids, Climate Chaos and Fracking

Jim Warren

The asteroid cluster has been hurtling toward Earth for decades, monitored warily by scientists. Early debris is already harming millions of people, and the impacts are accelerating. Engineers know how to steer the cluster away from direct impact. But the government is barely willing to discuss the challenge, and entrenched corporations are stuck in delusion that they’ll somehow keep building stock value as people and nature are devastated.
Suddenly, scientists find a way to slow the asteroids, buying humanity more time. But no one passes along the hopeful news.
Is it sci-fi? A really bad dream? Or a metaphor for global warming?
Climate change has been in the news lately, partly due to Donald Trump’s attacks on science. Still, there’s little mention of the extreme urgency or the key drivers of the crisis. And nobody’s telling us the very hopeful news that scientists recently learned how to lower the risk of total chaos: reduce methane emissions from fracking.
Here’s what the leading science says on critical fronts:
▪ An unprecedented, three-year global heat wave continues, with 2016 breaking the all-time average heat record set the year before. Weather extremes increasingly ravage communities worldwide, including a series of floods that hammered eastern North Carolina last fall, followed by devastating wildfires in our mountains.
▪ The incredible rate of recent warming is largely due not to the usual suspect, carbon dioxide, but to the build-up of super-potent methane, which traps 80 to 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
▪ Methane (natural gas) is spewing into the air from the U.S. fracking boom, which is driven by the massive expansion of gas-burning by Duke Energy and other utilities.
▪ The “point of no return,” beyond which ongoing global suffering would intensify to even higher levels, through runaway heating and cascading weather disasters, will arrive within a very few years.
▪ We can – and must – slow global warming by curbing methane emissions from the natural gas industry. Simultaneously, we must call out the Koch brothers, Duke Energy executives and others who are impeding the growth of cheaper renewables so they can keep building fracked-gas power plants and raising customer rates.
Why isn’t our society discussing this?
Fracking boom
The fracking boom of recent years – which poisons air and water in thousands of communities and causes earthquakes – has also accelerated the climate crisis at the worst possible time. The good news is that scientists say reducing methane emissions can slow warming in the crucial short term, buying more time to replace fossil fuels with renewables and slowing deforestation.
Capturing the large amounts of methane leaking and being vented into the air from outdated equipment and lax practices in the natural gas industry is cost-effective and creates jobs, as documented by the Environmental Defense Fund. But gas and power industry executives are fighting against regulation.
Are they also suppressing the methane-climate discussion?
Since 2015, NC WARN has worked with Cornell scientists and others to foster open public discussion of how the gas and electric industries’ methane pollution is driving the climate crisis. Fracking propaganda sells shale gas as “energy security” and a “cleaner-burning bridge fuel” between coal and renewables when, in reality, methane emissions make fracked gas three times as bad for the climate as coal.
Even as bizarre U.S. weather has ranged from prominent to dominant in the media for years, a gauzy veil somehow disconnects the devastation – and the balmy North Carolina winter – from well-documented climate changes that are accelerating.
North Carolina desperately needs debate about what this state can do to help slow the asteroid, not least because we’re home to Duke Energy. The largest U.S. carbon polluter remains a clean energy laggard – with renewable power still less than one percent of its generation in the Carolinas – despite the prodigious green-washing ads.
Sci-fi twist
Ready for the sci-fi plot twist? The massive shift by power companies to burn more fracked gas is premised on industry claims that underground supplies are virtually infinite, a gross exaggeration considered “pixie dust” by prominent analysts who warn that the shale gas supply is a fraction of what the industry and its captive regulators allege. In fact, fracked gas production peaked in February 2016 despite enhanced techniques to squeeze more gas from the shale rock.
So, with runaway climate chaos approaching, methane reduction and renewable energy solutions are being blocked as Duke Energy executives, the Kochs and others are gambling humanity’s future on a fracked-gas Ponzi scheme. There might be just enough shale gas to push us over the climate cliff – then we’re out of gas as social chaos accelerates.
In North Carolina, our Duke-friendly Utilities Commission has twice refused to even allow debate of the fracked gas supply question despite its impacts on reliability and price, saying it’s not relevant to Duke Energy’s plans to build 20 fracked gas-fired power plants and a $5 billion pipeline.
So why isn’t this even on the table?
“We’re running out of time”
Trump voters and climate deniers didn’t create this emergency. For years, our society has dodged open debate and engagement. Now, as climatologist James Hansen says, “We’re running out of time.”
We need more scientists, civic leaders and people of conscience to demand honest debate of these critical questions. North Carolinians might not be able to move Trump, but we can impact decisions made in Charlotte and Raleigh by Duke Energy executives and their undue control over state government.
Shifting to clean energy won’t be easy, but decarbonizing the Carolinas will be good for our economy, as being proven by renewable energy and storage solutions being deployed in free markets.
We simply cannot continue allowing key decisions to be determined by corporate influence instead of democratic debate. We must take a moral stand or choose to gradually succumb to the western fires, eastern floods, food disruption, rising seas, and growing social and economic chaos.
Climate scientists say it’s not too late to avert runaway catastrophe. But doing so will require curbing both methane emissions and corporate domination of our society.
Changing light bulbs helps but is not enough to offset the suffering of humanity and all of nature that’s accelerating due to the theft of our democracy by corporate bosses.
Right now is the time to rise past our apathy, fear and distraction and embrace this unprecedented challenge together.

Three Reasons Why Keystone XL May Never Get Built

James Wilt


Almost a full decade since first applying for a presidential permit, TransCanada looks set to finally receive go-ahead in the U.S. for its massive $8-billion Keystone XL pipeline.
But here’s the thing: U.S. approval, while a great leap forward for TransCanada, doesn’t guarantee the Keystone XL pipeline will ever be built.
New U.S. President Donald Trump was elected with the explicit promise to get the 830,000 barrel per day pipeline from Alberta to Nebraska built, under the conditions that the U.S. would receive a “big, big chunk of the profits, or even ownership rights” and it would be built with American steel; his administration has already flip-flopped on the latter pledge.
On January 24, 2017, Trump signed an executive order, inviting TransCanada to reapply for a presidential permit, which the company did two days later. It’s now in the hands of the State Department, which has to issue a verdict by the end of March.
Sounds like a slam dunk, right? Not so fast. Here are three key reasons why.

1) Economics

Even Enbridge CEO Al Monaco recently stated that Canada only needs two more export pipelines.
“If you look at the supply profile and you look at our expansion replacement capacity for Line 3 and one other pipeline, that should suffice based on the current supply outlook, out to at least mid-next decade,” Monaco said on a fourth quarter earnings call last week.
Wood Mackenzie analyst Mark Oberstoetter seconded that: “There’s not an evident need to get three or four pipelines built.”
Add to that the rapidly declining long-term prospects in the oilsands.
Those include Exxon’s writing off of 3.5 billion barrels in bitumen reserves, ConocoPhillips’ cutting of 1.2 billion barrels in reserves and Shell’s forecasting of global peak oil demand in 2021.
Just last week, Shell sold off almost all of its oilsands assets to Canadian Natural Resources Limited. This follows divestitures by Statoil and Total SA in recent years.
There will be no more greenfield projects if the price of oil stays at what it is,” says David Hughes, expert on unconventional fuels and former scientist at the Geological Survey of Canada.
Hughes adds that Western Canadian Select already sells at a discount of around $15/barrel due to transportation and quality discounts.
Pipeline companies thrive on long-term contracts with producers, with lower rates for longer terms (such as 10 or 20 years).
Such contracts are huge financial gambles, especially given uncertainty about oil prices. In a low oil price scenario, oilsands take a hit because of the high cost of production.
The economic case is not there for the three pipelines,” says Amin Asadollahi, lead on climate change mitigation for North America at the International Institute for Sustainable Development. “And should the massive expansion happen, I don’t think the financial benefits for the sector … would be there.”

2) Landowners

We’ve already seen what lawsuits and protests can do to proposed oil pipelines, including crippling Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and seriously delaying Energy Transfer Partner’s Dakota Access Pipeline.
Same goes for Keystone XL. Lawsuits have plagued the company for years. In 2015, over 100 Nebraska landowners sued TransCanada over the proposed use of eminent domain; the company eventually withdrew from the case and its plans for eminent domain, but it appears such conflicts will reignite with the federal approval. Landowners have already started to meet to plot out how to resist the pipeline.
TransCanada requires a permit from Nebraska in order to proceed. Last week, two-thirds of Nebraska’s senators signed a letter petitioning the state’s Public Service Commission to okay the proposed route; the original route was altered in April 2012 due to public opposition.
Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada, says: “They’ll probably get the federal approval, but state-level and other legal challenges will go ahead to try to stop it.”
Adam Scott of Oil Change International notes that he expects a lot of resistance to the Keystone project on the ground in Nebraska, especially given that the project still doesn’t have a legal route through the state.
There’s also growing resistance from Indigenous people, especially in the wake of Standing Rock. Thousands of Indigenous people recently gathered in Washington, D.C. for a four-day protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
In 2014, the Cowboy Indian Alliance united potentially affected farmers and Indigenous people to protest against the Keystone XL project. The recently signed continent-wide Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion specifically identified Keystone XL as a proposed pipeline to be stopped.

3) Environment and climate

Then there’s the fight north of the border over greenhouse gas emissions and climate obligations.
The Canadian government’s approvals of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and Enbridge’s Line 3 added a bit over one million barrels per day in potential capacity to the oilsands network.
Unless there are significant breakthroughs in technology to cut per-barrel emissions, those two pipelines alone will allow for oilsands production and associated greenhouse gases to hit Alberta’s 100 megatonne (Mt) cap; Stewart says companies have been talking about the possibility of emissions-cutting technologies such as solvents since 2007, but they still haven’t materialized in a commercial setting.
Unconventional fuels expert David Hughes has calculated that if the 100 Mt cap is reached and a single LNG export terminal is built, Canada will need to cut non-oil and gas emissions by 47 per cent cut in order to meet the 2030 target, which will be impossible “barring an economic collapse.”
Adding an additional 830,000 bpd of export potential via the Keystone XL — allowing for the kind of expansion hoped for by the National Energy Board and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — could result in the breaching of Alberta’s emissions cap and the country’s climate targets.
Stewart points to Chevron’s recent submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which acknowledged the increasing likelihood of climate-related litigation as a related sign of looming danger for companies.
It’s a rapidly growing trend. Climate-based litigations are grounding fossil fuel projects around the world. A lawsuit based on constitutional rights to a healthy environment filed on behalf of 21 children during the Obama administration threatens to bring a similar precedent to the U.S.
We’re actually looking at a variety of ways to put pressure — including possible legal challenges — on companies that are basing their business model on the failure of the Paris Agreement,” Stewart says. “If you’re telling your investors, ‘We’ll make money because the world will not act on climate change’ are you actually engaging politically to try to produce that outcome? Are you lobbying against climate policy?’ ”

Australian public hospitals relying on private patients

Gary Alvernia

Chronically underfunded public hospitals are increasingly depending on privately insured patients, a practice encouraged by state and territory governments to help cut public health spending. Between 2008 and 2015, the number of private patients rose by 50 percent, and the number of services provided to private patients nearly doubled.
A report by the Australian government’s Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) examined the impact of the Activity Based Framework (ABF) on the use of public health services by private patients. The ABF is the funding model for public hospitals nationwide, with funds directly tied to “national efficient prices” for the procedures performed by a given hospital or health service.
This “casemix” system was implemented by the Rudd-Gillard federal Labor government in 2011 to reduce health care expenditure by effectively forcing public hospitals to increase workloads to maintain funding. As a result of this and other cost-cutting measures, health care spending accounted for less than 16 percent of the federal government budget in 2016–17, down from 18 percent in 2006–07.
The Private Patient Public Hospital Service Utilisation report released this month by the IHPA, which oversees the ABF, made no mention of declining funding, but noted certain perverse incentives to promote the private utilisation of public hospitals.
Though the public system is free for all Medicare card holders, privately insured individuals can seek treatment, and have the option to receive additional services, a private room and choice of treating physician, along with shorter waiting times for some so-called elective procedures.
As public hospitals can charge a private patient’s health insurance fund for services provided, this offers a source of income to cash-strapped institutions. The IHPA report documents that the number of services provided to private patients rose from 450,000 to 815,000 hospital separations (a metric used to measure hospital activity) between 2008 and 2015.
This is not a new practice, as shown by a 2013 report on the same issue by the Australian Centre for Health Research (ACHR). It noted a near 10 percent per year rise in private patients since at least 2005, even before the ABF was implemented, and blamed this trend on inadequate federal and state funding for public hospitals.
A key incentive for admitting private patients is that the ABF does not account for payments received from health funds when determining federal and state contributions, allowing hospitals to treat private patients while maintaining public funding.
Hospitals are also exploiting a loophole that allows them to persuade public patients to use their private insurance during their stay. Hospitals are hiring private liaison officers to pressure patients with private insurance for contributions, or even charging their health funds without informed consent.
The ACHR notes that hospitals go further, with physicians leaned on to increase the number of private patients they admit, and some hospitals setting informal quotas for how many public patients a doctor can admit, with only private patients accepted after. Such practices are facilitated by state and territory governments, which often set targets for public hospitals to acquire private funding.
These practices have resulted in a marked increase in the proportion of privately insured patients seen in public hospitals, a trend seen in every state and territory, except South Australia. There was a national average increase of 10.3 percent per year, leading to 14.1 percent of public hospital patients being privately funded in 2014–15, up from 9.7 percent in 2008–09.
In the most populous states, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, one-fifth and one-seventh respectively of all public hospital patients are privately insured, while Queensland has seen a three-fold increase in the number of such patients since 2008. For individual hospitals, the figures can be higher. An article in the Age noted that the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne are expected to privately charge roughly 30 percent of their patients this year.
That public hospitals are turning toward privately insured patients reflects the severity of their funding crisis, the effects of which have been documented by the Australian Medical Association’s (AMA) 2017 public hospital report card. As the WSWS article on that report noted, there has been a blowout in public hospital waiting times for both urgent and “elective” treatment, as a result of the cuts initiated by the 2007–13 Labor government, and continued by the Abbott-Turnbull Liberal-National Coalition government.
With the corporate elite demanding further social spending cuts, the situation can only worsen. Proportions of private patients will rise, with those who can pay favoured. This will almost certainly see waiting times worsen further for public patients, expanding the inequality of the already two-tiered health system.
The ACHR report seems to view this as most likely in NSW, where apparently doctors are often leaned on by hospital managements to admit larger numbers of private patients, which guarantees less time and ability to admit public ones.
The rising numbers of private patients will be used to justify further attacks on the basic social right to free, high quality healthcare. An article in the Australian, titled “States urge hospitals to bill insurers,” criticised public hospitals for using private funds as a means of “thwarting efforts to make hospitals more efficient in their use of public funds,” thus effectively demanding further cost-cutting.
Despite cuts to health spending being the primary cause of the problem, the ACHR and IHPA reports recommend adjusting the funding schemes to reduce public funding if private patients are taken on, a proposal that would exacerbate the situation.
Private health insurance funds have also accused public hospitals of hurting their bottom lines, complaining that over $1 billion a year is being spent in additional charges incurred by private patients in public hospitals.
Undoubtedly the funds will exploit this trend to further raise premiums. Shaun Larkin, managing director of health fund HCF, told the Australian: “For HCF this is the fastest growing cost portion of our portfolios and it’s having a significant impact... If it continues to grow at the rate that it is, it’s going to be responsible for a significant part of the premium rate increases.”
Such increases would force working class households to drop out of the ever-more expensive insurance funds, leaving them no choice but to wait even longer for treatment in public hospitals.