UK Wind Generated More Electricity Than Coal In 2016

Simon Evans

The milestone is a first for the UK and reflects a collapse in coal generation, which contributed just 9.2% of UK electricity last year, with 11.5% from wind. The coal decline saw its output fall to the lowest level since 1935.

It also means CO2 emissions from UK power generation will have fallen by around 20% in 2016, as coal was largely replaced by lower-emissions gas. This reduction will be enough to cut overall UK CO2 emissions by 6% for the year, if other sectors’ emissions are unchanged.

Carbon Brief’s estimates of UK electricity generation and emissions in 2016 are based on a range of sources and our own analysis. (See below for details.) The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will publish its own estimates on 30 March.

Wind beats coal

The past 12 months have seen a year of firsts for the UK’s electricity system. At the broadest level, the UK grid is changing as centralised power stations are joined by thousands of smaller sites, particularly renewables, as part of efforts to decarbonise electricity supplies.

Other important factors include falling electricity demand, rising imports from continental Europe and changes in the relative price of coal and gas on wholesale energy markets. The UK’s top-up carbon tax, the carbon price floor, also doubled in April 2015.

In March 2016, as Carbon Brief analysis revealed, coal generation fell to zero for the first time since public electricity supply started in 1882. Wind generated more electricity than coal in April 2016, the first month this had ever happened.

Then Carbon Brief analysis showed solar also generated more electricity than coal in April, again the first month this had ever happened. Solar went on to generate more power than coal during the half year from April to September 2016.

Now, Carbon Brief analysis of the full twelve months of 2016 shows that wind generated more electricity than coal, as the chart below shows. This first was possible largely because of falling coal generation, which was down 59% on a year earlier.

UK electricity generation by source, terawatt hours (TWh). Source: BEIS Energy Trends table 5.1 and Carbon Brief analysis (see below). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

As the chart shows, this drop in coal output in 2016 was largely filled by an increase in gas generation, which was up 45% year on year. However, it’s worth noting that generation from coal and gas combined has fallen by 38% since 2010, when the coalition government took office.

Some 68% of the reduction in fossil-fuelled electricity since 2010 has been substituted with low-carbon sources, mainly renewables. Imported power replaced another 22% and reduced consumption accounted for the remaining 10%.

As a result of these changes, CO2 emissions from UK electricity generation in 2016 were approximately half those in 2010. Last year saw a particularly dramatic 20% reduction, Carbon Brief analysis shows, as coal use fell sharply.

Coal collapse

The reduction in coal generation during 2016 was a continuation of several years’ decline, such that output is now down nearly 80% since a 2012 peak, as the chart below shows.

UK annual electricity generation by source, terawatt hours (TWh). Source: BEIS Energy Trends table 5.1, historical electricity data and Carbon Brief analysis (see below). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

The amount of electricity generated by coal-fired power stations in 2016 – at an estimated 31 terawatt hours (TWh) – was the lowest since around 1935, Carbon Brief analysis suggests. That year, President Roosevelt opened the giant Hoover Dam in Nevada and Hitler began remilitarising Germany.

Coal’s share of 2016 electricity generation, at 9.2%, was the lowest ever. Even during the peak of the miners’ strike in 1985 (seen in the marked dip in coal output on the chart), coal generated some 45% of UK power, with oil and nuclear making up the remainder.

In spring 2016, three UK coal-fired power stations closed down. The UK plans to close all of its remaining coal plants by 2025.

Seasons of change

It’s worth looking more closely at last year’s record-breaking 12 months for UK electricity, in the month-by-month chart, below. You can see that coal’s share of generation fell as low as 2.5%, in the month of August.

UK monthly electricity generation by source, gigawatt hours (GWh). Source: BEIS Energy Trends table 5.1 and Carbon Brief analysis (see below). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

You can also see how wind and solar output are complementary: more electricity is generated by solar in summer, while wind turbines are most productive in winter.

One final point of interest is the uptick in overall electricity generation towards the end of 2016. This was a result of falling electricity imports from France, where an ongoing crisis has closed a number of nuclear power stations.

This uptick is reflected in the annual chart, where total UK electricity generation increased between 2015 and 2016.

Notes

Carbon Brief’s estimates for UK electricity generation in 2016 are based on the following sources: BEIS electricity generation figures for Q1-Q3, from Energy Trends table 5.1 (“electricity generated by all operating companies”).

This data was supplemented with BM Reports figures for grid-connected generation during October, November and December. Solar generation estimates for these months comes from Sheffield Solar.

Carbon Brief estimated the output from embedded generation not connected to the UK grid, using statistical methods based on previous months’ data. Embedded generation is predominantly made up of solar and onshore wind, as well as some gas-fired plant at industrial sites.

Bioenergy includes biomass, such as the wood pellets burned at Drax in Yorkshire, as well as energy from landfill gas and other wastes.

Carers cut off services under Australian disability scheme

Max Newman

Under the Australian Government’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), millions of primary and secondary carers of people with disabilities face losing the current minimal assistance they receive, such as essential respite services.

A report released last month by the Anglicare charity, entitled Carers: Doing it Tough, Doing it Well, outlines the carer-focused programs being dismantled under the NDIS roll out, without adequate replacement.

These services include case management programs, some designed specifically for older parents caring for younger people, to support their health, well-being and pursuit of life goals. Most significantly, respite services—designed to give carers much-needed breaks from direct care—are being shut down in areas where the NDIS has commenced.

The report states that in Australia there are nearly 2.7 million carers. Of them, 850,000 are primary carers, with their day-to-day lives entirely bound up with the care and welfare of someone, typically a family member, with profound needs.

According to the report, carers provide more than 1.9 billion hours of unpaid care each year, including care for “a person with a disability, for a frail aged person or for a person with a chronic illness.”

Yet, the needs and role of carers are “not formally recognised as part of NDIS packages.” As the report says, “there is no formal assessment of the needs of the carer, no funding package for the carer and no guarantee of involvement in the assessment of the care recipient’s needs.”

Supporting somebody with a disability, particularly over longer-term periods, has a significant personal impact on carers. The report explains that it negatively impacts “physical health, stress and anxiety, personal wellbeing, family relationships, employments, income and disconnection from community life, often leading to isolation and social exclusion.”

Carers are often also in poor economic situations as a result of the “combined effects of loss of employment and financial expenses associated with caring.” Moreover, around 38 percent of carers have a disability themselves.

The impact on carers’ emotional and mental health can be great. The report cites one study which found that 40 percent of a sample size of 60 carers fitted the criteria “for a possible psychiatric disorder.”

Sue King, Anglicare advocacy and research manager, told the media: “Respite isn’t actually necessarily being highlighted in the NDIS but we know that respite, for the carer, is really important. It’s not really clear how carers are going to be supported under the NDIS … if you can’t sustain carers into the future the entire system will collapse.”

Cheryl Paradella, a carer for her 18-year-old son who has Asperger syndrome and Tourette’s syndrome, and her 17-year-old daughter who also has Asperger syndrome and a complex mental health disorder, lost all respite services when the NDIS was rolled out six months ago in Campbelltown, a southwestern Sydney suburb.

“We were told no one would be worse off under the NDIS but, in actual fact, we are worse off because respite is not automatically provided for carers,” Paradella told Fairfax Media. Respite services were the only way she and her husband, who has post-traumatic stress disorder, managed. “I really have no idea what’s going to happen,” she said. “I don’t know how we’ll cope.”

Officially, respite and carers programs are being “absorbed” into a second tier of the NDIS, consisting of “information, referral, web services and community engagement.” According to forecasts by the Productivity Commission, whose 2011 report to the last Labor government formed the basis of the NDIS, some four million people with a disability and 800,000 primary carers are to be covered by this second tier.

For carers, the only dedicated support service announced so far is an Integrated Carer Support Service (ICSS), which is still in the design phase. Only $37 million has been committed over four years for its implementation. Currently, all that is running is a web site called Carers Gateway, which many older carers cannot access because they struggle to use the Internet.

This second tier is also supposed to cover all those people with disabilities who miss out on the 490,000 places within the scheme. This particularly affects those with psychosocial disability—mental health problems that cause social and employment difficulties.

The dismantling of carers’ services and the overall reduction of funding for people with disabilities is completely in line with the goals of the NDIS. Announced by the Gillard Labor government in 2012, the insurance scheme was touted as a “flagship” progressive reform. In reality, it was always a pro-business and cost-cutting blueprint, outsourcing services to private operators.

The NDIS was announced amid a raft of other austerity measures, including cutting payments to single parents and trying to force some 400,000 people off disability support pensions and into low-paid work.

Moreover, the Labor government increased the Medicare levy from 1.5 to 2 percent to partially fund the NDIS, forcing working people to bear the financial cost. Even this will cover less than half the government’s promised NDIS obligations at full rollout in 2019-20.

To fill some of the NDIS funding hole, the current Liberal-National government announced in its December mid-year economic review that over the next four years $3.7 billion would be stripped from the Education Investment Fund, which was supposed to finance university infrastructure. As a result, students will suffer a further deterioration in university facilities and services.

Australian government reshuffled again under mounting corporate pressure

Mike Head

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week conducted a limited reshuffle of his ministry following the forced resignation last week of Health Minister Sussan Ley, ostensibly over a media-generated travel expenses controversy.

Although kept to a minimum, the reshuffle was the fourth by Turnbull in the 16 months since he ousted Tony Abbott as prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party. That is an average of a reshuffle every four months—underscoring the Liberal-National Coalition government’s instability, which has worsened since it barely survived last July’s double dissolution election.

Turnbull replaced Ley with industry minister Greg Hunt, and switched cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos into Hunt’s portfolio. The inner cabinet was reduced from an historically large 23 to 22 members, meeting the demands of the Murdoch media for a smaller-sized frontbench.

To try to put a progressive gloss on the government’s latest crisis, Turnbull promoted Ken Wyatt from assistant minister for health and aged care, to the outer ministry position of minister for aged care and indigenous health, making him the first Aboriginal politician to receive such a posting. At the same time, Turnbull sought to appease the conservative Abbott supporters by elevating one of their faction, Michael Sukkar, to become assistant minister to the treasurer.

By restricting the swapping of ministerial posts, Turnbull rebuffed calls for Abbott to be brought into the cabinet, but this only further highlighted the rifts in the government. Turnbull faces ongoing pressure from the corporate elite and media for a more sweeping reshuffle in order to more aggressively slash social spending and the wages and conditions of workers. He also confronts escalating agitation from Abbott, who last week publicly accused the government of not moving “agilely” enough to cut corporate taxes to match those pledged by US President-elect Donald Trump.

Ley’s removal as health minister was a classic case of a “travel rorts” scandal being used by the corporate media to ramp up its demands on the government, which is increasingly being derided in ruling circles as weak and indecisive. In the Australian Financial Review on January 10, Andrew Clark described the Ley scandal as “an obviously avoidable, potentially disruptive, event for a government already suffering from a perception of division and drift.”

Ley’s frequent trips, using ministerial and parliamentary entitlements, to the Gold Coast resort strip made her an easy target. Reportedly, she had made 26 taxpayer-funded flights there since 2013, and claimed for 37 nights’ accommodation. Her visits featured New Year’s Eve parties, hosted by a wealthy businesswoman and political donor, and the purchase of a $795,000 apartment as an investment property. Ley initially defended the purchase as an “impulse” decision, only magnifying the social gulf between the political elite and the vast majority of the population, who cannot afford homes at that price, let alone investment properties.

Rupert Murdoch’s Melbourne tabloid, the Herald Sun, opened 2017 by launching the campaign against Ley on January 2. Using records obtained via freedom of information provisions, it published a story on Ley using an air force plane for a 2015 visit to the Gold Coast. The scandal was extended on January 5, again led by the Herald Sun, using a Department of Finance report on politicians’ expenses. Within eight days, Ley was gone.

Similar methods could be used against any number of government ministers, and opposition Labor Party leaders, several of whom already have been accused by the media of having exorbitant travel expenses, often involving trips to gala events or holiday destinations with members of their families. Those named include Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Labor’s shadow treasurer Chris Bowen.

For now, following Ley’s resignation, these allegations have been put on the backburner. However, a political message has been sent. “Travel rorts” allegations can be used to further destabilise the government, and the Labor Party, unless they rapidly escalate the offensive against the social services and living conditions of the working class.

Significantly, such a travel expenses scandal, involving the use of a chartered helicopter, was brought forward against one of Abbott’s closest supporters, then parliamentary speaker Bronwyn Bishop, in 2015. Within three weeks, she was forced to resign. It was a blow to Abbott, who was toppled by Turnbull a month later.

Ley was targeted also because public health spending is one of the biggest items on the list of budget cuts required by big business. Abbott installed Ley as health minister in December 2014 in a bid to rescue his government from the widespread public hostility to the 2014 budget. Its sweeping austerity measures included forcing patients to pay at least $7 upfront to see a GP (general practitioner) under the Medicare public health insurance system.

Abbott finally dropped the plan and tasked Ley with finding alternative means to gut health spending. As required, Ley led an assault on Medicare, primarily by continuing a freeze, initiated by the last Labor government in 2013, on Medicare payments to GPs. She also cut access to some pharmaceutical medications, and ended most bulk-billing (services provided without upfront patient fees) for pathology tests, diagnostic imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans.

Through these measures, the government has begun to dismantle access to Medicare, forcing people to pay for—or delay—essential medical care. Official statistics released last month revealed that only 64.7 percent of patients now have all GP visits bulk-billed, making a mockery of Ley’s claim of an 89.2 percent bulk billing rate last year.

But this is nowhere near enough for the corporate and media elite. Judith Sloan, contributing economics editor of Murdoch’s Australian, was blunt on January 10. She wrote: “Forget Sussan Ley’s dubious, ‘within the rules’ use of travel entitlements—she should be dropped from the health portfolio because she’s been a dud. It’s really hard to think of one positive outcome she has achieved, save for spending more of taxpayers’ money on new drugs, worthy though that might be … Losing Ley as Health Minister may just be the spur the government needs to confront the big issues in health and aged-care policy and implement some real reforms.”

A series of Australian editorials made clear this was a wider warning to Turnbull. A January 19 editorial concluded: “After this forced reshaping, it is high time Mr Turnbull and his team left the distractions behind and delivered. They need to outline an economic narrative, create a sense of purpose and take the public with them.”

What must be “delivered,” as far as the ruling elite is concerned, are far more severe cuts to health, education, welfare and all social spending. The global credit ratings agencies have renewed their threats, first issued after the July election debacle, to strip the country of its AAA rating unless Turnbull’s government demonstrates its capacity to eliminate the budget deficit, currently running at almost $40 billion annually, by its promised date of 2020-21.

This week’s inauguration of the Trump administration further raises the threat of trade war and military war between the US and China, Australia’s largest export market, with potentially catastrophic consequences for Australian capitalism. In seeking to impose brutal austerity measures and corporate tax cuts, the Liberal-National Coalition government, however, already confronts deep popular hostility, as does the political establishment as a whole.

Last month, an Australian National University survey, conducted during the July election, reported record low levels of satisfaction with the political system. Only 26 percent of respondents thought people in government could be trusted—the lowest number since that was first measured in 1969. A record high 19 percent said they did not feel close to any political party, or identify as Labor, Liberal-National or Greens voters.

Global temperatures set new highs for third consecutive year

Bryan Dyne

Global average surface temperatures set a new record high in 2016, according to the latest data collected by NASA and an independent analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Temperatures exceeded the records previously set in 2014 and 2015. It is the first time since modern temperature recordkeeping began in 1880 that Earth’s average surface temperature set new record highs for three years in a row.

Moreover, January through September of 2016 (except for June) were the warmest on record for those respective months. The average monthly temperatures in October, November and December were second only to the highs set in 2015. The 17 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

This latest temperature data confirms the planet’s long-term warming trend. Certain weather phenomena, such as El Nino and La Nina respectively, can cause positive or negative spikes in the temperature. However, their impact is relatively small compared to the overall increase in global surface temperatures, which have risen by an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century. The primary driving factor of this change in Earth’s climate is the increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activity.

While these findings are supported by the vast majority of the scientific community, members of the incoming Trump administration have disputed both the validity of the science as a whole and the impact humans have had on global warming. Trump himself has called climate change a “hoax” and a “very expensive form of tax” and has tweeted, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Though Trump has brushed off this last comment as a joke, it coincides with certain corporate interests that will be embodied in the new administration. Trump’s nomination for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees the rules governing carbon and waste emissions in the United States, is Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has fervently advocated for the deregulation of greenhouse gases in order to prop up the coal, oil and gas industry.

In a signal of his commitment to these interests, Pruitt stated during his nomination hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he intends “to run [the EPA] in a way that fosters both responsible protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses.”

This perspective coincides with others on Trump’s EPA transition team. These include David Schnare, who falsely claimed that climate scientist Michael Mann was guilty of scientific malpractice regarding global warming, and Myron Ebell, who is a member the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing advocacy group that denies climate change. Schnare and Ebell are joined by figures from the Heritage Foundation, an organization that states in its policy document for 2017, “The next President’s budget should prohibit all federal agencies from regulating greenhouse gas emissions,” and that there is “no evidence” of the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming.

One of Pruitt’s likely targets will be Obama’s Clean Power Plan from 2015, which is one of the reasons Trump’s presidential transition team has described the EPA as “an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs.” Yet this measure, which was hailed at the time as a “sweeping” and “uncompromising” step by the Obama administration to address climate change, places virtually no practical greenhouse gas regulations on the power sector.

The Clean Power Plan, for example, sets as its goal a 32 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2030. In real terms, this would mean a 475 million ton reduction in annual power plant carbon output. However, these emissions have already declined by 405 million tons between 2005 and 2013, meaning that Obama’s measures called for a reduction in emissions only half as fast as the declines that were already occurring.

Moreover, the policy was aimed at accommodating the rise in natural gas use in power plants that has come about over the past decade as a result of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The extraction process has been shown to be damaging to the surrounding water and air quality, yet this is not accounted for in the Clean Power Plan. Nor is the risk of a methane leak during the drilling process; methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and can offset lower carbon dioxide emissions coming from power plants.

Obama also defended BP after the company’s offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded in 2010, leaking crude oil across the Gulf of Mexico and causing an estimated $1 trillion in economic and environmental damage to the region.

Internationally, the Obama administration has only used the issue of climate change to further its geopolitical interests. During the Paris climate talks of 2015, Obama made an oblique criticism of China as he commented that countries should be held accountable to their emission reduction pledges, while at the same time ensuring that any goals set at the conference were nonbinding. This was also an attempt to court the various European powers to align themselves with the US’s “Pivot to Asia,” even as those same governments were becoming more involved in China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, established as an attempt to counter the influence of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Ultimately, the differences between the Obama administration and the Trump administration will not be over genuine concerns about the health of the environment, but about the nature of any sort of regulations on the fossil fuel industry. Obama paid lip service to ending global warming while implementing business-friendly rules. On the other hand, Trump’s administration will focus on dismantling not merely Obama’s policies but whatever environmental gains have been made in previous decades.

Automakers announce US investments, anticipate big profits under Trump

Jerry White

Over the last several weeks, major US- and foreign-based automakers have announced they will maintain or expand production in the US and, in some cases, trim back operations in Mexico. Donald Trump has taken full credit for the decisions, boasting that he created thousands of jobs before even taking office, and there would be more “big stuff” after Inauguration Day.

Last week General Motors, which Trump previously criticized for producing one of its small car models in Mexico, announced it would invest $1 billion in the US, leading to a “combination of 1,500 new and retained jobs.” In addition, GM would “begin work on insourcing axle production for its next generation full-size pickup trucks, including work previously done in Mexico, to operations in Michigan, creating 450 US jobs,” the company said in a statement. It added that it was already “insourcing” 6,000 IT jobs formerly done overseas.

GM’s moves follow similar announcements by Fiat Chrysler, Ford, Toyota and South Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia. On January 3 Ford said it would cancel plans to build a $1.6 billion plant in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, where it was going to build the next-generation Ford Focus. At the same time, it said it would invest $700 million at its plant in the Detroit suburb of Flat Rock and add 700 jobs to build two new electric-powered SUVs there. United Auto Workers Vice President Jimmy Settles hailed the move, saying, “I am thrilled that we have been able to secure additional UAW-Ford jobs for American workers.”

There is a great deal of cynical stage-managing in all of this. In virtually every case the moves by the automakers were planned well in advance of the US presidential elections. They are only jumping on board Trump’s “America First” to boost their corporate images and share values.

Michael Harley, analyst for Kelley Blue Book, added, “Retaining and growing jobs in the US is a political hot button right now. While the decision to create the new positions and opportunities was likely made months ago, the timing of the announcement shows General Motors is more than willing to play the new administration’s publicity game—a sure bet to hear mention of GM in Friday’s inaugural address,” Harley told the Free Press.

All the phony expressions of concern for American workers and flag-waving nationalism—whether by Trump, the auto bosses or the UAW—are aimed at concealing the anti-working class character of the new administration.

Whatever additional costs the automakers may incur from retaining jobs in the US will be more than compensated by the vast profits they will reap from the corporate tax cuts and deregulation promised by the new Trump administration.

CEO Mark Fields said the company was “encouraged by the pro-growth policies” of Trump and the new Congress, adding that “these tax and regulatory reforms are critically important to boost US competitiveness.” GM CEO Mary Barra echoed this, saying “As the US manufacturing base increases its competitiveness, we are able to further increase our investment, resulting in more jobs for America and better results for our owners. ... we are committed to growth that is good for our employees, dealers, and suppliers and supports our continued effort to drive shareholder value.”

Indeed, one of the measures the corporations are salivating over is the Trump administration’s plan to sharply reduce repatriation taxes on the billions of dollars they hold in off-shore tax havens. This cash hoard can then be used for stock buybacks and dividend payouts to “drive shareholder value,” i.e., enrich the company’s top investors and corporate executives.

Then there is the destruction of occupational health and safety, federal wage and labor standards, consumer rights and environmental protections. The auto industry has lobbied hard and anticipates that Trump will also roll back the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The companies complain that the standards, which require them to produce car and truck fleets that will average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025, are too costly and cut into profits.

While the Obama administration made a symbolic gesture to lock in the requirements, they can be undone by Trump. The head of Trump's EPA transition team is Myron Ebell, a climate change denier who directs environmental and energy policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an advocacy and lobbying group in Washington DC, funded by fossil fuel companies.

Then there is the question of protectionism. Some executives have complained about Trump’s threats to impose 35 percent tariffs on cars or components companies import back into the US, and have openly worried about the impact on car exports to China if Trump’s trade war policies trigger retaliation. Nevertheless, the stepping up of protectionism, or at least the threat of it, has its commercial advantages.

It is significant, for example, that the Obama administration has issued massive fines to German carmaker Volkswagen and pursued criminal charges against its executives for installing software that falsified emissions tests—while the Obama administration essentially gave a pass to the crimes of GM, which covered up defective ignition switches that killed and injured scores, if not hundreds.

Earlier this month, the EPA alleged that Fiat Chrysler put software in Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models that allowed them to exceed pollution limits. Denouncing the report, Fiat Chrysler boss Sergio Marchionne—who just days before announced a $1 billion investment in the US—said the company intended to work with the incoming administration “to resolve this matter fairly and equitably.”

For decades, the UAW has promoted the lie that economic nationalism and labor-management collusion would defend the jobs and living standards of workers. The promotion of anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese chauvinism was aimed at ideologically disarming workers, pitting them against their class brothers around the world in a race to the bottom, and justifying the UAW’s collusion in the destruction of jobs and living standards. Now the unions are offering their services to Trump.

This was underscored in the letter sent to Congress by United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard backing Trump’s pick for Commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, a billionaire asset stripper who the USW worked with to destroy the jobs and pensions of thousands of steelworkers. “The industry is smaller but more efficient than ever, and Wilbur Ross knows better than anyone that on a level playing field, our members are the most productive workforce on the planet,” Gerard wrote, before praising Ross’s threats to impose tariffs on Chinese, Brazilian and Russian steel.

The drive to increase American “competitiveness” will include more job cuts, not less. It is significant that GM’s recent announcement does not affect the 3,300 workers who will lose their jobs in the next few months when the company eliminates shifts at small car plants in Detroit, Lansing, Michigan and Lordstown, Ohio, in a job-cutting move facilitated by the sellout contract signed by the UAW in 2015.

Trump prepares to slash federal budget by $10.5 trillion over next decade

Niles Niemuth

The Trump transition team is developing a federal budget based on a blueprint drawn up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation that will slash $10.5 trillion from government spending over the next decade, according to a report Thursday in the Hill.

The main budget priorities of the Trump administration are to be published within 45 days of the inauguration and the full budget proposal is expected sometime in April.

According to the Hill, the Trump administration’s budget proposal is being drawn up by Russ Vought and John Gray, former Heritage Foundation employees and one-time aides to Vice President Mike Pence. Vought was also the executive direction of the Republican Study Group, which has proposed similar cuts in recent years, while Gray served as an aide to Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan when he led the House Budget Committee.

The implementation of the reported budget cuts would mark a massive escalation in the social counterrevolution and attack on the living standards of the working class carried out by the Democrats and the Obama administration over the last eight years.

Among the “dramatic” reductions that are being prepared are significant cuts to funding for the Commerce Department and the Department of Energy, with programs currently under their jurisdiction either eliminated entirely or transferred to other departments.

Other federal departments that will reportedly be significantly impacted by cuts and program elimination include the Department of Transportation, Justice Department and State Department.

Under the Heritage Foundation plan, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which oversees the operations of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), would be entirely privatized. While the CPB still relies on the federal government for a portion of its funding, it has increasingly relied on donations from large corporate sponsors and from the wealthy.

The Heritage Foundation’s budget blueprint is a litany of attacks on benefits and social programs which benefit the poor, as well as an assault on scientific research.

Under the guise of “reducing fraud,” the foundation calls for new restrictions on the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits millions of single mothers and low-wage workers. Other reactionary measures under consideration are new work requirements for adult Food Stamp recipients and eliminating Social Security payments for disabled children.

Federal funding for the arts and humanities research would be totally phased out with the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Scientific research carried out across multiple departments, including in the Department of Energy, will be completely or partially defunded.

The savagery of the reported budget proposals is yet another expression of the fundamental class character of the incoming Trump administration, in which billionaire oligarchs are taking direct control of the federal government, rather than pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

Reports of the incoming administration’s budget plans came as the Senate held cabinet hearings Thursday for multimillionaire corporate raider and former Goldman Sachs executive Steven Mnuchin, nominated to serve as the Treasury Secretary, and former Texas governor Rick Perry for head of the Department of Energy, an agency which Perry called to eliminate in 2012.

Mnuchin, if confirmed, would join a cabinet comprised of billionaires, multimillionaires and former generals. While Mnuchin has an estimated net worth of $400 million, that puts him well behind Trump’s picks for Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos ($5.1 billion), Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross ($2.5 billion), and the Small Business Administration, Linda McMahon ($1.35 billion).

During his testimony Thursday, Mnuchin defended his time as the head of California-based IndyMac Bank, renamed OneWest, where he made massive profits aggressively pursuing foreclosures against homeowners during the height of the foreclosure crisis.

Mnuchin sought in his remarks to present himself as a savior moved by the plight of homeowners who was hindered in his efforts to help by too many government regulations. “If we had not bought IndyMac,” he said, “the bank would likely have been broken up and sold in pieces to private investors, where the outcome for consumers could have been much bleaker.” (And Mnuchin just happened to make millions in the process!)

He promised that if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, he would work to eliminate financial regulations that had kept him from becoming even wealthier. Mnuchin will also be taking the lead in formulating Trump’s tax plan, which is to include cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to only 15 percent.

Demonstrating the practically nonexistent character of the vetting process for Trump’s ultra-wealthy nominees, the Washington Post reported Thursday that Mnuchin had failed to report his corporate interests in the Cayman Islands as well as more than $100 million in real estate and art holdings in an initial submission to the Senate panel reviewing his nomination. Though this lapse drew some flak from committee Democrats, it did little to hurt the former Goldman Sachs executive’s chances of confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate.

While some of Trump’s nominees may take their time to get through the confirmation process, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday that a deal had been reached to approve retired Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis as Pentagon chief and retired Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security shortly after Trump’s inauguration today.

“I looked at their records...and I think they’d be very good,” Schumer noted approvingly. He also indicated that Republican Representative Mike Pompeo would be confirmed as CIA director either today or on Monday.

Joint Russian, Turkish bombing campaign in Syria deepens NATO crisis

Bill Van Auken

The launching of coordinated air strikes by Russian and Turkish warplanes against Islamic State (ISIS) targets in northern Syria Wednesday has further exposed the crisis gripping Washington’s intervention in the war-ravaged Middle Eastern country, as well as the deepening contradictions plaguing the NATO alliance on the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president.

The bombing campaign struck targets around the Syrian town of al-Bab, the scene of bloody fighting between Turkish troops and ISIS militants over the past several weeks.

From a political standpoint, the joint action by Russia and Turkey, a member of the NATO alliance for the past 65 years, is unprecedented. It stands in stark contradiction to the anti-Moscow campaign being waged by Washington and its principal NATO allies, which has seen the cutting off of military-to-military ties, the imposition of sanctions, and the increasingly provocative deployment of thousands of US and other NATO troops on Russia’s western borders. Just last week, the US sent 3,000 soldiers into Poland, backed by tanks and artillery, while hundreds more US Marines have been dispatched to Norway.

Turkey’s collaboration with Russia represents a further challenge to the US-led alliance under conditions in which Trump has severely rattled its European members with recent statements describing NATO as “obsolete” and charging its members with not “taking care of terror” and not “paying what they’re supposed to pay.”

The joint air attack was carried out under the terms of a memorandum reached between the Russian and Turkish militaries the previous week, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

The document, signed on January 12, was designed to prevent “incidents” between Turkish and Russian warplanes, as well as to prepare “joint operations ... in Syria to destroy international terrorist groups,” Lt. Gen. Sergei Rudoskoy said in a statement.

Russian-Turkish relations reached their nadir in November 2015 when Turkish fighter jets ambushed and shot down a Russian warplane carrying out airstrikes against Islamist fighters near the border between Turkey and Syria. The incident brought Turkey, and with it NATO, to the brink of war with nuclear-armed Russia. At that point, Turkey was serving as the main conduit for foreign fighters, weapons and other resources being poured into Syria to wage the US-orchestrated war for regime change, while Russia was intervening to prop up its principal Middle East ally, the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In June of last year, Ankara sought to mend it relations with Moscow, which had retaliated for the shoot-down with economic sanctions. Relations grew closer in the wake of the abortive July 2016 military coup, which the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed on the US and its allies.

The turning point in bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia came at the end of last year, with the Russian-backed Syrian army’s routing of the Western-backed, Al Qaeda-linked militias in their last urban stronghold of eastern Aleppo. Turkey joined with Russia in brokering a withdrawal of the last “rebels” from the area and a nationwide ceasefire, which continues to prevail in much of the country.

Washington was pointedly excluded from the negotiations surrounding both Aleppo and the ceasefire. Only at the last moment has Moscow invited the incoming Trump administration—over the objection of Syria’s other major ally, Iran—to participate in talks aimed at reaching a political settlement over the six-year-old war that are to convene in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, next week.

The joint Russian-Turkish airstrikes around al-Bab came in the wake of bitter protests by the Turkish government over the refusal of the US military to provide similar air support for Ankara’s troops in the area. The Pentagon’s reluctance stemmed from the conflicting aims pursued by Turkey, which sent its troops into Syria last August in what the Erdogan government dubbed “Operation Euphrates Shield.”

Ostensibly directed against ISIS, Ankara’s primary target was really the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People’s Protection Unit (YPG). The Turkish government views these groups as affiliates of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), against which it has waged a protracted counterinsurgency campaign within Turkey itself. The offensive against ISIS-controlled al-Bab is aimed principally at preventing it from falling to the YPG and at blocking the linking up of eastern and western Kurdish enclaves along Turkey’s border.

For its part, Washington has utilized the YPG as its principal proxy ground force in the US attack on ISIS, sending in US special forces troops to arm, train and direct these Kurdish fighters.

The US refusal to back Turkish forces around al-Bab with airstrikes led to angry denunciations of Washington by the Turkish president, who charged that the US was supporting “terrorists” instead of its NATO ally. Ankara also began delaying approval for US flights out of the strategic Incirlik air base in southern Turkey and threatened to deny Washington and its allies access to the base altogether.

It was likely these threats, combined with the Turkish-Russian agreement to conduct joint strikes, that led the Pentagon to reverse its previous refusal to support Turkish forces and launch limited bombing runs around al-Bab as well this week.

This crowded and geostrategically tense battlefield is likely to grow even more dangerous following Trump’s ascension to the White House.

Trump has reportedly called for the Pentagon to come up with proposals to deal a decisive defeat to ISIS in Syria and Iraq within 90 days. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he would “present options to accelerate the campaign” against ISIS to retired general James Mattis, Trump’s incoming defense secretary.

Citing unnamed Pentagon officials, CNN reports that “The Defense Department is prepared to provide the new administration with military options to accelerate the war against ISIS in Syria that could send additional US troops into direct combat.”

“One option would put hundreds, if not thousands, of additional US troops into a combat role as part of the fight to take Raqqa,” the Islamic State’s Syrian “capital,” according to the television news network. “... in the coming months, the Pentagon could put several US brigade-sized combat teams on the ground, each team perhaps as many as 4,000 troops.”

Plans are also reportedly being drawn up to escalate military provocations against Iran, which Mattis, in testimony before the Senate, described as the “biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East,” adding that the Trump administration must “checkmate Iran’s goal for regional hegemony.”

There is every indication, Trump’s rhetoric about improving relations with Moscow notwithstanding, that US imperialism is preparing for another eruption of militarism in the Middle East that will pose an ever greater threat of spilling over into a new world war.

British Council Young Critics Programme for Nigerian Writers and Journalists 2017

Application Deadline: 26th January 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Lagos, Nigeria

About the Award: The 20 participants trained will subsequently be inducted into IATC.

The 2017 workshop will hold from 1 – 4 March 2017 alongside Lagos Theatre Festival. The workshop will include classroom teaching from IATC members from Europe and Nigeria and fieldwork in the form of review writing by the participants during the festival with mentoring from the IATC facilitators. The training will be certified by IATC.

Reviews produced by the participants will be published online by Guardian Newspapers and syndicated by other media platforms.

Guardian Newspapers Nigeria will also publish a selection of the reviews by project participants in print.

The workshop is free of charge to all participants.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Selected participants will

• Have demonstrated interest in the performing arts or have experience working as a journalist
• Be aged between 18 – 35 years of age
• Reside in Nigeria or any country in West Africa
• Preference shall be given to applicants with some experience in theatre criticism or journalism

Selected applicants will be notified by 1 February 2017

Number of Awardees:  In 2017, the programme will train and mentor twenty (20) young writers and journalists (aged 18 -35) in theatre criticism. The 20 participants trained will subsequently be inducted into IATC.

Value of Training: 

• Participants within Lagos will get a daily transport stipend of N2, 500 per day; participants from outside Lagos will be put in accommodation provided by British Council and transported to the workshop venue each day.
• Lunch and dinner will be provided for all participants from 1- 4 March.

Duration of Training: 1 – 4 March 2017

Apply Here

Visit Training Webpage for details

Award Provider: British Council

PhD Research Fellowships for Developing & Emerging Countries in Switzerland 2017/2018

Application Deadline:

• 1st of October 2016 for Residence in the Spring Semester (mid-February to the end of May)
• 1st of March 2017 for Residence in the Fall Semester (mid-September to the end of January)

Offered annually? Yes

Brief description: PhD Research Fellowship Programme for outstanding young professors from universities from developing and emerging countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America at The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland-2017 (Fall Semester)

Subject Areas: International and development studies (anthropology, history, law, politics and political science, and economics)

About Scholarship: The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland offers fellowship programme, open to outstanding young professors from universities from developing and emerging countries in Africa, Asia, or Latin America, pursuing advanced research in areas bridging the fields of international and development studies, broadly defined, and working in disciplines such as anthropology, history, law, politics and political science, and economics.

Selection Criteria

The selection will be based on the quality of research. Quality being equal, selection may be guided by an interest in promoting gender and regional diversity. Candidates should demonstrate how their research stay will contribute to their academic career and their home institution.

Eligibility

• Candidates must hold a PhD and have a full time tenure-track or tenured position in an academic institution in Africa, Asia, or Latin America.
• Candidates should demonstrate how their research stay will contribute to their academic career and their home institution.

Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Benefits

• Scholars will spend one semester at the Institute to :
  • Update and strengthen the curriculum of their course ;
  • Further a personal research project ;
  • Participate in teaching courses ;
  • Interact with the international community of the Institute and Geneva area.
  • Scholars receive a contribution towards living expenses. The Institute will cover costs of travel and visas for participants as well accommodation costs;
  • It will ensure a monthly stipend to compensate in the case of the loss of income* in the institution of origin and to cover subsistence costs in Geneva; upon presentation of a certificate
  • Participants will be provided with a work space, and access to the Institute’s library and IT facilities.

Eligible Countries

Scholarship is open for candidates from developing and emerging countries including Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

To be taken at (country): Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

How to Apply

Application should include:

• A letter of motivation stating the reasons for the application, the preferred semester, the Institute’s discipline or area of expertise in which the candidate is interested, 2 courses the candidate would be interested to attend while at the Institute;
• A work plan detailing the proposed activities to be completed during the candidate’s time at the Institute (update of teaching curriculum, research project, etc.);
• A curriculum vitae and a list of publications
• Two letters of recommendation

Application must be sent preferably by e-mail at in-residence[at]graduateinstitute.ch (see link below)

Visit Scholarship Webpage

Sponsors: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

Call for Proposals: Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) Grants 2017

Application Deadline: 30th May 2017

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country):

Fields of Proposal: OSIWA seeks proposals aimed at achieving the following specific themes:

• Economic Governance and Advancement
• Justice Reform and Rule of Law
• Journalism
• Equality and Anti-Discrimination
• Democratic Practice

About the Award: The Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) is a grant making and advocacy foundation that is part of the global Open Society Foundations Network. OSIWA works to support the creation of open societies in West Africa marked by functioning democracy, good governance, the rule of law, basic freedoms, and widespread civic participation. Its headquarters is in Dakar and it has offices in Abuja, Monrovia, Freetown and Conakry.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: OSIWA primarily awards grants to local organizations based in West Africa. In rare and limited circumstances, it provides support to West Africa-based international organizations with a strong commitment to transfer knowledge to local groups they partner with. It provides grants to government institutions as well as regional and sub-regional organizations working in its core priority areas. OSIWA requires all organizations seeking funding to submit a complete proposal, budget, and other relevant documents including leadership information (list of Board members, trustees and management staff who will be involved in the project), proof of registration and banking details.

Applications that are not submitted with all the relevant documentation may be delayed.

Selection Criteria: Selection criteria and process applications are evaluated on the extent to which the organization possesses the vision, drive, experience and skills required to create and sustain a project that will advance OSIWA’s objectives.

Value of Program: There is no set maximum amount for OSIWA funding. OSIWA operates a limited budget for the ten countries it covers and its regional program. In the event that OSIWA cannot fund the entire project budget, it may choose to fund part of it and request the grant seeker to source for the outstanding balance.

How to Apply: Proposals should be sent directly to: proposals@osiwa.org. Only proposals sent to this email address will be considered. Proposals will be accepted until May 30th 2017. OSIWA encourages the early submission of proposals. Submitted proposals will be reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA)

International Parliamentary Scholarship Program for Young Arab Professionals 2017

Application Deadline: 31st January 2017

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany

About the Award: The German Bundestag invites you to spend four weeks in Berlin in September 2017. The programme is intended for talented Arab people who are interested in politics and who are keen to play an active role in promoting core democratic values in their home countries. The German Bundestag is offering you the opportunity to get to know the German parliamentary system during an intensive programme.

In light of the Bundestag elections taking place in 2017, you will have the opportunity during a one-week internship in a Member’s constituency to experience the work carried out there and to come into contact with political decision-makers. Successful candidates will be chosen by the German Bundestag’s independent selection panel.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

• Citizenship of an Arab country
• Under the age of 35 at the start of the scholarship
• University degree
• Very good knowledge of German
• An interest in politics, and social/political commitment

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Participants will receive a monthly scholarship of 500 euros. In addition, accommodation in an apartment complex will be provided free of charge, and the costs of travel to and from Berlin will be covered, as well as the costs of health, accident and personal liability insurance

Duration of Scholarship: The programme will take place from 1 – 30 September 2017 in Berlin.

How to Apply: Please visit www.bundestag.de/ips_arabisch for details of how to apply. Application forms can also be found there.

Send your completed application documents by email as a PDF-file to the German mission in your home country; the PDF-file name should consist of your surname, followed by your given name (i.e. “surname-first name”).

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: German Bundestag