Religious Madness in Ulster

James Haught

Back in 1986, I went with an editor group to Northern Ireland, where we saw religio-political horror in full bloom.

“Interface streets” between Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods had 20-foot-high “peace walls” — barricades to prevent snipers on either side from shooting families on the other side.

British police checkpoints and armored vehicles were everywhere, with officers wearing bulletproof vests and carrying machine guns. Barbed wire surrounded some buildings.

Newspapers told of Catholic-Protestant bombings and assassinations. On the day before we arrived, a teen-age Protestant recruit was killed and his fiancée blinded by a bomb in their car dashboard. Police stations listed officers killed by “terrorists.”

Our group listened to a sermon by the Rev. Ian Paisley, a fiery Protestant who denounced “bachelor priests” and “papists.” He called the Catholic mass “a blasphemy and a deceit.”

We went to the Sinn Fein political headquarters, heavily barricaded home of Catholic resistance to British and Protestant rule. My most vivid memory was stacks of Sinn Fein magazines praising Catholic “freedom fighters” who killed Brits and “Prods.” One account praised assassins who walked up behind a university professor and shot him in the head. Catholics suspected of being friendly with Protestants were “kneecapped” by pistol shots.

I felt like I was in a lunatic asylum where murder was lauded.

We met Martin McGuinness, a sandy-haired youngish leader who had served two prison terms for terrorism. He was earnest and passionate as he recited British and “Prod” atrocities against Catholics. He said he and fellow Sinn Fein leaders were marked for death by the enemy.

Ulster leaders boasted that Northern Ireland’s “troubles” were fading. They said the previous year had brought only 54 assassinations, 148 bombings, 237 shooting episodes with 916 woundings, 31 kneecappings, 522 terrorism arrests and seizure of 3.3 tons of weapons and explosives — all in a tiny land of 1.5 million people, smaller than most American states.

Was Ulster’s horror purely religious? No. I guess that some of the killers on both sides never went to church — but being born Catholic or Protestant put them into enemy camps. University intellectuals called it “religious tribalism.”

Six years after our editor visit, a Protestant killer disguised as a journalist entered the stockade-like Sinn Fein headquarters and murdered three. Catholic killers retaliated by blowing up a van containing eight Protestants. Then Protestants retaliated by shooting five Catholics at a betting shop. On and on the murder cycle went.

The murder cycle actually began in 1609 when King James of Bible fame rewarded English and Scottish commanders with rich farmland in the six northern counties called Ulster. Former Catholic owners were driven into the hills. Bitterly, they joked that “Protestants got the land and we got the view.”

Persecution of Irish Catholics persisted for centuries. Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan army massacred them, calling it a “righteous judgment of God.” Catholic worship was outlawed in the 1700s and priests were expelled. Then in the 1800s, it was allowed again — but Catholics were required to pay Protestant tithes, triggering a brief “Tithe War.”

Mutiny continued intermittently until after World War I, when the Catholic-dominated south of Ireland finally broke free from British rule. But Protestant-dominated Ulster counties remained a loyal British province, where Catholic-Protestant strife took about 3,000 lives.

In the 1990s, a fitful peace finally grew in Ulster. Old mortal enemies Paisley and McGuinness became government leaders together.

Last week, McGuinness — frail and sick — resigned from the Ulster government. It triggered memories of that tragic land’s decades of religio-political bloodshed.

Poet William Butler Yeats wrote of the “terrible beauty” that haunts the soul “wherever green is worn.” He lamented:

“Out of Ireland we have come. / Great hatred, little room / maimed us at the start. / I carry from my mother’s womb / a fanatic’s heart.”

What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal

Brian Cloughley

There has been a great deal of media and US Congress clamor about a supposed Russian intelligence operation involving Donald Trump.  Documents provided by Senator John McCain alleged among other matters that The Donald had been involved in naughty antics while on a trip to Russia, and the usual suspects feigned shock and horror at the allegations.

The BBC reported that “the latest — and perhaps most headline-grabbing — source of tension between Donald Trump and the US intelligence community is an unverified report, apparently compiled by a private intelligence firm, claiming Russia has gathered compromising data about the president-elect.”  The thing is a storm in a teacup — a bit like the Clinton emails non-event — but that won’t stop it being spun out by the US mainstream media which is smarting from its dismissive treatment by a man they all resent.

(No matter what we might think of The Donald, it’s giggling funny to reflect on the horrified indignation of those formerly unassailable media hacks who have now found themselves in positions of feeble supplication regarding the new White House.)

On the other side of the Atlantic the picture can sometimes be rather different when scandals arise —   be they contrived or genuine — and it is interesting to look at one particularly grubby affair which can’t possibly be denied, yet has been swept under the carpet by a government whose motives for doing so are questionable.

In mid-January the Al Jazeera television channel revealed an Israeli plan to destroy the careers of senior British government figures because they have been critical of Israel.  The evidence is undeniable.

A senior official in the Israeli embassy in London, Shai Masot, was recorded by an Al Jazeera undercover reporter when speaking with Ms Maria Strizzolo, formerly chief of staff to the British Conservative Party government’s ‘minister of state for skills’, Robert Halfon, the past political director of the Conservative Friends of Israel, who has a colorful history.

In an exchange between Ms Strizzolo and Mr Masot in a London restaurant, he is recorded as asking her “Can I give you some [names of] MPs [Members of Parliament] that I would suggest you take down?” to which Ms Strizzolo replied that all MPs have “something they’re trying to hide.”  (The expression ‘take-down’ is generally defined as “a wrestling maneuver in which an opponent is swiftly brought to the mat from a standing position,” but in this context is rather more disturbing.)

Mr Masot then told her “I have some MPs” to be taken down, and specified “the deputy foreign minister,” Sir Alan Duncan, who has been critical of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.  According to transcripts of the meeting, Strizzolo implied that “a little scandal” might result in Duncan being dismissed, and added “don’t tell anyone about this meeting,” which was clear indication that she knew it was clandestine and involved sensitive matters.

It was not surprising that Ms Strizzolo resigned following disclosure of her agenda — but first she tried to lie her way out of the affair, as is usual for such people.

In answer to a reporter’s questions she claimed her conversation with Masot was “tongue-in-cheek and gossipy . . . Any suggestion that I could exert the type of influence you are suggesting is risible.”  She declared that the Israeli Embassy’s Mr Masot “is not someone with whom I have ever worked or had any political dealings beyond chatting about politics, as millions of people do, in a social context.”  This was strange, coming from a person who was recorded as saying she could help Israel because “If at least you can get a small group of MPs that you know you can always rely on . . .  you say:  ‘you don’t have to do anything, we are going to give you the speech, we are going to give you all the information, we are going to do everything for you’.”

Pronouncements of non-involvement did not end with Ms Strizzolo’s assertion of virtue, and the Israeli Embassy’s official statement was that “the comments were made by a junior embassy employee who is not an Israeli diplomat, and who will be ending his term of employment with the embassy shortly.”

This “junior embassy employee” describes himself as “a Senior Political Officer” on his business card, and his social media page states he is “the chief point of contact between the embassy and MPs and liaising with ministers and officials at the Foreign Office” which indicates that he is responsible for dealing with leading representatives of his host country.

It is bizarre to claim that Masot would explore methods of ‘taking down’ British government ministers without authorization from a very high level — just as it is impossible to imagine that his contacts in the British Parliament might be acting entirely of their own accord.

Shai Masot told Joan Ryan, a Labor Party Member of Parliament and Chair of Labor Friends of Israel (LFI), that he had plans for “another delegation of LFI activists” to visit Israel and Ms Ryan said “That’d be good. What happened with the names we put in to the embassy, Shai?”  To which Masot replied “We’ve got the money, more than a million pounds, it’s a lot of money . . .  I have got it from Israel. It is an approval.”

Israelis don’t spend a million pounds for nothing.

Predictably, Ms Ryan said the filmed revelations are “rubbish,” but the Al Jazeera recording is undeniable evidence of her involvement in chicanery as well as revealing an Israeli scheme to interfere directly in the domestic politics of the United Kingdom.

But there was no follow-up by the British government about this murky meddling.

It cannot be denied that an official of the Israeli Embassy in London collaborated with a British government employee who worked for a pro-Israeli Member of Parliament in order to attempt to destroy the reputation of a British government Minister.  That is outrageous.

Yet the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office — the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whose Minister of State (in effect “the deputy foreign minister,” as he was referred to by the Israeli agent who was trying to “take him down”) was the person specifically targeted for a campaign of Israeli-British denigration — quickly stated that “The Israeli Ambassador has apologized and is clear these comments do not reflect the views of the embassy or government of Israel.  The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed.”

And that is that.  There will be no action by the British government, in spite of Mr Masot reflecting amusingly, and no doubt to the approval of Ms Strizzolo and much of the British public, that the Foreign Minister himself, Mr Boris Johnson, “is an idiot with no responsibilities.”

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, is entirely pro-Israel, as demonstrated by her criticism of President Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry who described the Israeli government as the “most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements.”  He was perfectly correct, but Mrs May scolded him and pandered to the Israeli government by stating that she does “not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.”

All the Friends of Israel — in both the Conservative and Labor parties — have worked their magic in Britain, as has the enormously powerful Israeli lobby in the United States, so it is not surprising that the Al Jazeera revelations of Israel’s wily intrigues were barely mentioned in the Western media.

The Matter is Closed.

If a “Senior Political Officer” in (for example) the Russian embassy in Britain or the United States was detected in such demonstrably underhand antics as undertaken by Israel’s Shai Masot there would be massive journalistic fandangos in American and British media.  The West’s television channels would be near meltdown with hysterical condemnation of the threat to democracy and there would be prolonged and frenzied anti-Russian outbursts in righteously protesting halls of government.

But when Israel schemes to ‘take down’ a respected British Government minister with the assistance of a British government official,  and the Israeli ambassador acknowledges being found out, the British government ignores insult, contempt and generously-funded efforts to destroy the career one of its own senior representatives, and declares that  ‘The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed.’

It is amazing what money can buy.

Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse

David Swanson

Here I am in occupied DC. The White House looks like a Green Zone. There was a time when you could walk up to it. Caravans of police cars and black SUVs zoom by with sirens blaring and everyone else forced aside. Do people look outraged? No, they grin and admire. We need more democratic perspectives. Here are six.

1. Get active around policy not personality. And try to nudge newly active or re-activated people in that direction. To take one example of thousands, we should be cheering more loudly for the commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence. And we should have raised a lot more hell than we did over the idea of locking her up to begin with — and Obama’s pronouncing her guilty before his subordinates tried her — and over all the other whistleblowers still in cages or facing persecution. More support for not bombing Syria in 2013, and more condemnation for arming proxies instead. More — hell, any — support for Trump deescalating hostility with Russia, and more opposition to his proposals to “kill their families” and “steal their oil.”

2. Recognize that the crisis is not new. It’s just ever more urgent, with environmental or nuclear apocalypse threatening. Obama increased military spending, dropped more bombs on Iraq than Bush did, still occupies Afghanistan, is now helping to destroy Mosul, and radically expanded presidential war powers for his successors. Each president does a lot more harm than good. Each should be protested and resisted and impeached and removed — but for good reasons, of which there are always plenty, not for bad ones.

3. Promote a positive vision. We can move toward a better future in which reduced or eliminated military spending makes possible what we don’t now even try to dream of.

4. Go local and global. Build power in towns, cities, states, and through alliances across borders. The latter is crucial for avoiding war and protecting the planet.

5. Take on Washington too, but recognize what we are up against. The activism that may have saved Chelsea Manning, delayed the bombing of Syria, prevented as of yet a war on Iran, and led to Trump campaigning on the idea that attacking Iraq and Libya was stupid, could do more if it knew its own strength. But the wars have now gone secret, outsourced, privatized, and taken to the skies rather than the ground. The lies have become slicker too, though that may be about to change. We have to up our game. A nuclear war is not one that can be criticized after it starts on the grounds that it costs too much money or hurts someone sympathetic or because the people nuked are not showing gratitude. We are also up against a permanent government sending troops to Russia’s border, facilitating a coup in Ukraine, sabotaging peace in Syria, and making recent accusations against Russia that have in some cases proven false and in no case yet been proven true.

6. Resort to the most powerful tool: nonviolence. You cannot expect violence to work on children, even presidential children. It does not educate or control. Children need attention, positive when they do right and negative when they do wrong. The CIA, “Homeland-” “Security,” and “Democrats” are effectively telling Trump that he can only be loved or respected if he joins in spitting in the face of a nuclear armed government. The people who found the one candidate who could lose to Trump are finding the one way to oppose his agenda that will fall apart under scrutiny if it doesn’t kill us all first. Let’s have no more partisanship. No more cults of or against personalities.

We need principles. Policies. Peace.

Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns

Linda Pentz Gunter

There is a climate crisis upon us. Polar ice is melting. Sea level rise is happening. Time is running out. Emergency solutions are the only option — energy supplies that can come on fast and sustainably.

Sadly, some in the U.S. Congress would rather bury their heads in radioactive quicksand, sinking our money into nuclear energy research at national laboratories that have sought but failed to find illusory atomic answers for decades.

The House and Senate are re-introducing near identical versions of the “Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017,” which promises to throw our money down the nuclear rabbit hole rather than direct major funding to renewable energy solutions that are already addressing climate change quickly and effectively but should be supported and accelerated before it’s too late.

The Act states as its purpose “To enable civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public institutions, to expand theoretical and practical knowledge of nuclear physics, chemistry, and materials science, and for other purposes.” It passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate.

In reality, it is another futile tilt at the so-called “advanced reactor” windmill, when real windmills would actually do the job far faster, more safely and cheaply and without all the attendant risks of tinkering with radioactive materials and perpetuating a deadly waste problem into eternity.

The bill states it would authorize research, modeling and simulation of “advanced nuclear reactor concepts” that are “inherently safe.” This chimera has been chased for decades and inherent safety won’t be found in the designs the national laboratories are pushing, such as the sodium-cooled reactor, proven to be literally explosive.

So-called new generation “fast reactors” are another old idea from an old research establishment, the Argonne National Laboratory, which would be delighted to be on the receiving end of this latest transfusion. Argonne’s first attempt at a fast neutron reactor was canceled by the U.S. Congress in 1994.

A new documentary, The New Fire, (a singularly odd choice of title given the subject), celebrates the excitement of eager young scientists determined to invent the better nuclear mousetrap. But back in 1996 the National Academy of Sciences already acknowledged that the development of a reactor that could recycle its own waste would have very high costs and marginal benefits and would take hundreds of years — time we definitely do not have.

The thrill of theoretical experimentation in the laboratory may be exciting for young engineers. But they shouldn’t get our money. Nor should we hand these aspiring atomic alchemists the mandate to cure climate change. That race is already being won by renewable energy research and implementation. It is in this field where the real “innovation” lies and where Congress should be directing their mandate and funding dollars.

Myanmar: A scribe’s Murder And Its Aftermath

Nava Thakuria

Guwahati: Killing of media persons in the Indian subcontinent is no unusual happening as it annually losses around ten journalists to assailants. India, Pakistan and Afghanistan often lead the list of victims with additional inputs from Bangladesh and Myanmar, where Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Tibet (under China) and Nepal normally maintain their no-journo killing index.

Myanmar (also known as Burma or Brahmadesh) as a whole witness lesser incidents of journo-killing and the Buddhist majority country witnessed the assassination of only five journalists in the last one and half decades. But the recent murder of a young reporter in its northwestern part, which is adjacent to Nagaland & Manipur, exposes the vulnerability of media persons, who dare to report on critical issues including the environment and shockingly with little hope for justice.

Ko Soe Moe Tun (35), a Monywa (Sagaing) based Burmese journalist was found dead on 13 December 2016, who was convincingly targeted for his extensive investigation & coverage on the wood smuggling, illegal logging and mining in northwest Myanmar. The reporter, engaged with Daily Eleven newspaper, published by the Yangon based Eleven Media Group, also posted few details in his facebook account about the people involved with the illegal timber trades.

The investigating police officers found a long stick, a rough rope, his cell phone etc nearby the body on the location. The severe injury-marks were visible on Soe’s nose, head and eyes. The autopsy report revealed that Soe’s skull was fractured causing his death. His mobile phone showed some miss calls in the midnight of 12 December, which might help the investigating authority to trace the killers. Soe left behind his mother (Ye Ye Htay), young wife (Daw Khin Cho)
and a minor son. The family source claimed that he was popular in his locality with no enmity to anyone. Hence, they believe that Soe was targeted because of his reporting-works primarily on illegal logging, farmland confiscation, karaoke lounges and the controversial Chinese-backed Letpataungdaung copper mine project.

Myanmar, which still possesses some of the most important biodiversity areas in the world, faces massive deforestations because of its prized teak wood and other wildlife. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Myanmar lost one fourth of its forest covers in the last two and half decades. The losses are visible in Sagaing, Shan, Kachin, Arakan States of the underdeveloped country. Moreover the destruction of forests has severely affected the important habitats of various wildlife species.

The ancient stories narrate that the hills of Sagaing range were once covered with thick forests, where the king used to exile the condemned criminals for capital punishments as those were full of wild animals. But today because of recent legal and illegal loggings the country had lost two million hectares of its virgin forests.

Nevertheless, the country has around 30 million hectares of forest covers, which is impressive compared to many other southeast Asian countries. The government under the mentorship of Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, which partially banned timber exports & logging, now declares that it would impose a nationwide ban on logging to protect the old trees in the coming days.

Myanmar Journalist Network (MJN), while condoling over the demise of Soe, seconded the family’s view arguing that the young scribe used to write regularly on conservation issues and often received threats from the illegal logging traders prior to his death. Myanmar Press Council also supported the view arguing that threats against the journalists are common in the country.

The overall media freedom in Myanmar has improved since 2011, the year Myanmar’s military rulers handed over the political power to a quasi-civilian government led by President Thein Sein. Soon the government at NayPieTaw abolished the pre-publication censorship and allowed the privately owned daily newspapers to hit the stands. The situation further improved following the massive win by the National League for Democracy (NLD) in the last historic national
elections on 8 November 2015 under the leadership of Suu Kyi. Though the great lady could not become the President, because of some clauses in the 2008 military backed constitution, Suu Kyi emerges as the most powerful political figure in Myanmar.

Sadly, the Burmese journalist fraternity continues to work under threats, earlier if it was from the military forces, now it comes from different anti-social elements. It is still identified as one of the most censored countries in the globe. In reality the idea of press freedom is still new in the low literate country, which had slowly changed its face from the decades-long military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy.

The Yangon based Myanmar Frontier, in one of its editorials, argued that there were many challenges for the newly emerged democratic government, ‘but ensuring a media that is free from threats and is able to carry out its work would be a sign that the country (Myanmar) is moving in the right direction’.

The year 2016 ends with the statistics of 16 journalist-murder incidents in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh along with Myanmar. India witnessed the murder of six journalists (Tarun Mishra from Uttar Pradesh, Indradev Yadav/ Akhilesh Pratap Singh from Jharkhand, Rajdeo Ranjan from Bihar, Anshita Bawa from Punjab, Kishore Dave from Gujarat and Dharmendra Kumar Singh from Bihar) in twelve months.

India’s troubled neighbor Pakistan lost three journalists (Mehmood Khan, Shehzad Ahmed and Muhammad Umar) to assailants, but Afghanistan lost more scribes (Nematullah Zahir, David Gilkey, Zabihullah Tamanna, Yaqoub Sharafat and Mohammad Zubair Khaksar in 2016. Myanmar and India’s immediate neighbor Bangladesh reported the killing of one editor (Xulhaz Mannan) and a netizen (Samad Nazijmuddin) in the bygone year.

Prior to Soe’s murder, Myanmar had lost four journalists namely Aung Kyaw Naing (also known as Ko Par Gyi in 2014), Kenji Nagai (2007), Hla Han and Tha Win (1999) to assailants with impunity. Moreover, the government imprisoned many media personalities including Lu Maw Naing (since January 2014), Aung Thura (February 2014), Sithu Soe (February 2014), Yarzar Oo (February 2014), Tint San (February 2014) etc. Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Sans/without Frontiers (RSF), Myanmar Journalists Association (MJA), International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) etc deplored the murder of Soe and demanded actions against the criminals. Facing the heat, the Myanmar authorities recently detained three suspects in the murder, but reportedly two of them were already released. The Sagaing chief minister Dr Myint Naing, who visited the residence of Soe on 19 December, stated that the police would find out the truth about his murder. Dr Naing asserted that he too wanted to see the true picture and appealed to everyone to work together to find out the truth.

Asia-Pacific Forum of Environmental Journalists (APFEJ), while appreciating the Myanmar police for questioning few persons relating to Soe’s murder, has urged the authority for further investigation and stringent actions against the culprits. The Dhaka based scribe’s forum argued that killing a journalist because of his reporting on environmental issues must be dealt with absolute seriousness. “Killing of a scribe is a serious offence, but the assassination of an environmental journalist should be recognized a major crime both against the humanity and Mother Nature. We demand a fair probe into Soe’s murder and visible punishment to the culprits,” said APFEJ chairman Quamrul Chowdhury. He also appealed to the Burmese government to adequately compensate the family of the slain journalist and support his eight years old son in pursuing proper education.

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.