Category Archives: Resource Based Economy

The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah is one of 27 national monuments under review by the interior secretary, per executive order. Bob Wick/BLM/Flickr hide caption

The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah is one of 27 national monuments under review by the interior secretary, per executive order.

A looming decision about whether to abolish or shrink the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah should provide an early signal of how the Trump administration will deal with a long list of public lands issues.

For roughly a month and a half, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has had 27 national monuments under a microscope, reviewing the protected status of these vast expanses of land (and, in some cases, water) at the prompting of an April executive order by President Trump.

The idea, according to the order, is to assure that each of these areas is appropriately designated under the 1906 Antiquities Act, a law that gives the president the authority to establish national monuments ... with a few caveats. Namely, they must include "historic landmarks" or "other objects of historic or scientific interest," and they must not exceed "the smallest area" necessary for their upkeep.

At issue is whether the presidents who created the monuments overstepped their authority. But just as important to those who live around the sites is whether they restrict the economy and ignore local interests.

Bears Ears, established last year by President Barack Obama, is the first on Zinke's list. But a second Utah site, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, offers a more comprehensive glimpse into the controversy that eddies around many of the monuments and a revealing peek into what Zinke may ultimately recommend to the president.

So, here it is: a tour of Grand Staircase-Escalante. That is, a tour of the national monument's economic impact, the political cloud surrounding it and what we can expect once Zinke's decision comes down.

The Grand Staircase-Escalante, with its famous hoodoos, or columns, has long been at the center of a local fight over whether its federal designation hurts or helps the surrounding area. Bob Wick/BLM/Flickr hide caption

The Grand Staircase-Escalante, with its famous hoodoos, or columns, has long been at the center of a local fight over whether its federal designation hurts or helps the surrounding area.

So, what is the benefit or harm of having a national monument in your neighborhood?

According to Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based think tank that crunched the data on jobs and the economy around 17 of the national monuments under review, the effect is anywhere from nothing to a modest net positive.

Chris Mehl, the group's policy director, says that from 2001 to 2015, overall jobs in the communities around Grand Staircase, in particular, increased by 24 percent and personal income overall grew by 32 percent.

These jobs are believed to be mostly service based, in fields that include everything from health care to hospitality, outdoor recreation and tourism.

The monument lies within two rural counties in southern Utah, home to about 12,000 residents and about a half-dozen towns across an area that's nearly 10,000 square miles in size.

Mehl says the economies of rural Western communities like the one around Grand Staircase have changed dramatically, "with huge social impacts we're just coming to grips with." So other, larger economic factors may be involved.

"But there's no sign of an economic apocalypse here," he says.

Commissioners in rural Garfield County, Utah, have long seen it differently.

In 2015, they passed a resolution declaring a state of emergency, saying the monument had all but wiped out the natural resource-based economy in the area. They cited a remarkable 67 percent drop in enrollment at Escalante High School since the monument was designated, while other schools have suffered similar drops.

"We see markers that don't indicate a healthy economy," says Matthew Anderson of the Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based free market think tank. He argues that Headwaters' study doesn't tell the whole story.

President Bill Clinton, with Vice President Al Gore, signs his 1996 order designating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. Opponents continue to note that Clinton made this move while sitting at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. Doug Mills/AP hide caption

President Bill Clinton, with Vice President Al Gore, signs his 1996 order designating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. Opponents continue to note that Clinton made this move while sitting at the Grand Canyon in Arizona.

Local anger still runs deep over President Bill Clinton's 1996 designation because it also effectively nixed a proposed coal mining operation. A Dutch mining firm's proposal could have brought in $100 million in new tax revenue and created about 600 jobs, according to state estimates at the time.

Anderson argues the types of jobs created by a national monument designation namely in recreation and tourism tend to be low-paying and seasonal, and he says these jobs don't always sustain families the way livestock grazing does. A national monument grandfathers existing activities like grazing leases but bars new ones.

Some residents throw cold water on the idea of shaky employment.

"We are awash in jobs," Blake Spalding, co-owner of a local grill, tells The Salt Lake Tribune. "What we need is people to fill them."

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke faced protesters while visiting the Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante last month in Utah as part of a review to determine their future status under the Trump administration. George Frey/Getty Images hide caption

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke faced protesters while visiting the Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante last month in Utah as part of a review to determine their future status under the Trump administration.

The debate around Grand Staircase by no means ends with the balance sheet.

Ninety-three percent of Garfield County is owned and controlled by the federal government. And for some detractors, like former Escalante Mayor Jerry Taylor, the federal presence feels akin to that of an unwelcome relative.

"We love our mother-in-law," he once said, according to E&E News. "But sometimes we don't want her to tell us how to run our house."

Those detractors have not forgotten how the monument was established in the first place: planned largely without input from state leaders and designated by Clinton at a signing ceremony that wasn't even in Utah.

"Remember," Zinke said during a visit to the state, according to The Tribune, "when this monument was formed, the governor of Utah read it in the paper."

As recently as February, Utah lawmakers called on Washington to reduce the size of the monument, citing "a negative impact on the prosperity, development, economy, custom, culture, heritage, educational opportunities, health, and well-being of local communities" among other grievances.

Nevertheless, when Zinke visited Grand Staircase last month, he was greeted by chants of demonstrators calling for him to "save our monument," the St. George Spectrum & Daily News notes.

The site flush with ancient artifacts and fossils that date back tens of millions of years has been lauded as "the Shangri-La for dinosaurs." And proponents defend its value not only for recreational visitors, but also for scientists.

"What we learn here matters to the entire West," Nicole Croft, executive director of Grand Staircase-Escalante Partners, tells E&E News.

The federal review of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, with its hiking attraction the Calf Creek Falls, and other national monuments may lie with the interpretation of a president's authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Chad Douglas/Flickr hide caption

The federal review of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, with its hiking attraction the Calf Creek Falls, and other national monuments may lie with the interpretation of a president's authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

The ultimate fate of the monuments is murky partly because a president's authority under the law that established them, the 1906 Antiquities Act, may be open to dispute.

"What's unclear right now is whether the president has the authority to undo what one of his predecessors has done," says Mark Squillace, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. The act "essentially authorizes the president to proclaim, but not to modify or revoke, national monuments."

Squillace says only Congress has the clear authority to revoke a designation because Congress has authority over public property.

While some small monuments have been turned over to states, no precedent exists for the abolition of a national monument the size of Grand Staircase.

Because of that lack of clarity, one thing is fairly clear: Any order by Trump to shrink or nullify any monument will almost certainly end up in court. It is widely expected that environmentalists would immediately sue.

Squillace says the dispute could go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Even Zinke himself hinted at the uncertainty during his confirmation hearings earlier this year.

"The law is untested," he said.

Here is the original post:

What Utah's Canyon Country Can Tell Us About Trump's Monuments Review - NPR

The pursuit of transition to a knowledge economy in the context of low foreign direct investment is one of the main challenges facing President Hassan Rouhani since his reelection on May 19, 2017. Although the Iranian economy returned to positive growth in 2016 of about 6.4%, this rebound can largely be ascribed to the return to near-capacity oil exports after the UN Security Councils endorsement of the nuclear agreement in July 2015 led to the easing of international sanctions. According to the World Bank, integration of Irans banking sector with the global banking system has been slow since the sanctions were lifted. This has impeded foreign direct investment to Iran and trade, which will be crucial for the development of Irans non-oil sector, reads an article recently published in Malaysia Sum. Excepts follow:

Focus on Using Human Capital to Create Wealth The UNESCO Science Report recalls that the government first set its sights on moving from a resource-based economy to one based on knowledge in its 20-year Vision Plan (2005-25). This transition became a priority after international sanctions were progressively hardened from 2006 onwards and the oil embargo was tightened. In February 2014, Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei introduced the concept of Resistance Economy, a plan advocating reliance on domestic potentials and a lesser dependence on imports that reasserted key provisions of Vision 2025. Vision 2025 challenged policymakers to look beyond extractive industries to the countrys human capital for wealth creation. This led to the adoption of incentives to raise the number of university students and academics, on the one hand, and to stimulate problem-solving research and industrial research, on the other. For instance, in order to ensure that 50% of academic research was oriented toward socioeconomic needs and problem-solving, the Fifth Five-Year Economic Development Plan (2012-17) tied development to the orientation of research projects. It also made provision for research and technology centers to be set up on campus and for universities to develop linkages with industry. Vision 2025 foresaw an investment of $3.7 trillion by 2025 to finance the transition to a knowledge economy. It was projected that one-third of this amount will come from abroad but, so far, FDI has remained elusive. It has contributed less than 1% of GDP since 2006 and just 0.5% of GDP in 2014. Much of the $3.7 trillion earmarked in Vision 2025 is to go toward supporting investment in research and development by knowledge-based firms and the commercialization of research results. A law passed in 2010 provides an appropriate mechanism, the Innovation and Prosperity Fund. According to the funds president, Behzad Soltani, 4,600 billion rials ($171.4 million) had been allocated to 100 knowledge-based companies by late 2014. Public and private universities wishing to set up private firms may also apply to the fund. Domestic expenditure on research stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2008 and 0.3% of GDP in 2012. Iranian businesses contributed about 11% of the total in 2008. The governments limited budget is being directed toward supporting small innovative businesses, business incubators and science and technology parksenterprises that employ university graduates.

Surge in University Rolls In line with the goals of Vision 2025, policymakers have made a concerted effort to increase the number of students and academic researchers. To this end, the government raised its commitment to higher education to 1% of GDP in 2006. After peaking at this level, higher education spending stood at 0.86% of GDP in 2015. Higher education spending has resisted better than public expenditure on education overall. The latter peaked at 4.7% of GDP in 2007 before slipping to 2.9% of GDP in 2015. The result has seen a steep rise in tertiary enrolment. Between 2007 and 2013, student rolls swelled from 2.8 million to 4.4 million in the countrys public and private universities. Some 45% of students were enrolled in private universities in 2011. There were more women studying than men in 2007, a proportion that has since dropped back slightly to 48%. Enrolment has progressed in most fields. The most popular in 2013 were social sciences (1.9 million students, of whom 1.1 million were women) and engineering (1.5 million, of whom 373,415 were women). Women also made up two-thirds of medical students. One in eight graduates go on to enroll in a Masters/PhD program. This is comparable to the ratio in the Republic of Korea and Thailand (1 in 7) and Japan (1 in 10).

Science, Engineering Attracting More PhD Graduates The number of PhD graduates has progressed at a similar pace as university enrolment overall. Natural sciences and engineering have proved increasingly popular among both sexes, even if engineering remains a male-dominated field. In 2012, women made up one-third of PhD graduates, being drawn primarily to health (40% of PhD students), natural sciences (39%), agriculture (33%) and humanities and arts (31%). According to UNESCOs Institute for Statistics, 38% of Masters and PhD students were studying science and engineering fields in 2011. There has been an interesting evolution in the gender balance among PhD students. Whereas the share of female PhD graduates in health remained stable at 38-39% between 2007 and 2012, it rose in all three other broad fields. Most spectacular was the leap in female PhD graduates in agricultural sciences from 4% to 33%, but there was also a marked progression in science (from 28% to 39%) and engineering (from 8% to 16% of PhD students).

Surge in Research Pool According to the Institute for Statistics, the number of (full-time equivalent) researchers rose from 711 to 736 per million inhabitants between 2009 and 2010. This corresponds to an increase of more than 2,000 researchers, from 52,256 to 54,813. The world average is 1,083 per million inhabitants. One in four (26%) Iranian researchers is a woman, which is close to the world average (28%). In 2008, half of researchers joined the academia (51.5%), one-third in the government sector (33.6%) and just under one in seven in the business sector (15.0%). Within the business sector, 22% of researchers were women in 2013, the same proportion as in Ireland, Italy and Norway. The number of firms declaring research activities more than doubled between 2006 and 2011, from 30,935 to 64,642. The increasingly tough sanctions regime oriented the Iranian economy toward the domestic market and, by erecting barriers to foreign imports, encouraged knowledge-based enterprises to localize production.

See the article here:

Iran in Pursuit of Knowledge Economy - Financial Tribune

Minnesota Power, a utility division of ALLETE (NYSE:ALE), today announced the next step in its EnergyForward strategy for ensuring a safe, reliable and competitive energy supply for customers and the region. If approved by regulators, the resource package coupled with the companys existing renewable resources will result in renewable resources providing 44 percent of the companys energy supply by 2025, further reducing carbon emissions while keeping rates affordable.

In an upcoming filing with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC), Minnesota Power will request the addition of 250 megawatts of wind power capacity, an additional 10 megawatts of solar power and 250 megawatts of combined-cycle natural gas generation to meet customer demand for power, which is projected to grow throughout the region. The new resources will increase the companys already robust wind portfolio of 620 megawatts and double its solar generation.

For the past four years, EnergyForward has been exceeding expectations for how an energy company can transform the way it produces and delivers energy, said Brad Oachs, president of Regulated Operations. We look forward to working with our customers and regulators to continue down the path toward a safe, reliable, cleaner and affordable energy future.

With approval of the proposed resource package by the MPUC, renewable energy resources including wind, Canadian hydro, solar and biomasswill account for 44 percent of the utilitys energy supply portfolio, exceeding the initial EnergyForward goal of one-third renewable power. Minnesota Powers long-term goal is an energy mix of two-thirds renewable energy and flexible, renewable-enabling natural gas and one-third environmentally compliant baseload coal.

Natural gas is an essential component of the resource package to be filed with regulators. Without this plant, Minnesota Power would be reliant on fluctuating wholesale market prices when sun and wind resources arent available, increasing overall costs over the long-run.

Through a unique partnership with Dairyland Power Cooperative and access to a competitive natural gas supply, this approximately $350 million investment will further balance Minnesota Powers energy mix while contributing meaningful growth for ALLETEs shareholders, said ALLETE Chairman, President and CEO Al Hodnik. Minnesota Powers EnergyForward investments and industrial load prospects complement nicely the nexus of energy and water growth initiatives already announced and additional opportunities being pursued by ALLETE Clean Energy and U.S. Water. The ALLETE of today is a stronger and much more balanced company, with each of its businesses providing attractive growth and diversity consistent with our overall growth thesis.

Minnesota Power will file later this summer with the MPUC requesting approval of the resource package. After filing, state regulators will open a formal review process to consider Minnesota Powers request. After input from stakeholders and the public, a final determination is expected in the latter half of 2018.

The details of Minnesota Powers proposal include:

Minnesota Power already is meeting or exceeding state standards for renewable power, energy conservation and carbon emission reduction through fleet transition of smaller coal units and the addition of renewable energy. The company has already achieved a 25 percent renewable energy mix well ahead of Minnesotas goal of 25 percent by 2025. Minnesota Power expects to reduce carbon emissions on its system by about 40 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.

We believe this resource package is the best way to meet changing customer expectations for clean energy while preserving safe, affordable and reliable supplies of energy for the customers who depend on us to power homes, schools, hospitals and the natural resource based industry that fuels our regions economy, Oachs said.

Minnesota Power provides electric service within a 26,000-square-mile area in Northeastern Minnesota, supporting comfort, security and quality of life for 145,000 customers, 16 municipalities and some of the largest industrial customers in the United States. More information is available at http://www.mnpower.com. ALE-CORP

View post:

Minnesota Power Proposes Next Step in EnergyForward Plan - POWER magazine

Thursday June 8 2017

Wilson Otieno feeds fish being reared in ponds in Homa Bay County on May 11, 2016. The uptake of aquaculture in Kenya will boost employment. PHOTO | TOM OTIENO | NATION MEDIA GROUP

Kenyas blue economy represents the latest global move towards marine-based economic development.

Its space in the Indian Ocean as well as inland waters holds promise for the exploitation of sectors such as industrial fisheries, aquaculture, marine tourism, transport, container repair and cleaning, ship-building and repair, coastal and inland shipping, bio-prospectingenergy,sand-seabed mining.

The blue economy encompasses resources in the oceans and inland water bodies.

This, unlike the green economy (agriculture), has been the least understood and explored pillar.

On September 25, the world adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all.

Listed 14th is the goal to Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.

In January, President Uhuru Kenyatta commissioned a Blue Economy Committee to prioritise programmes for the development of blue growth potential.

Maritime transport and human resource capacity building have emerged as the most potential areas to provide wealth and create jobs for youth.

With Mombasa Port recording an annual throughput of 22million tonnes, there is no reason why part of that cargo should not be carried on Kenyan-owned ships, just as Kenya Airways has flown the national flag in the aviation industry.

It is in this regard that a new strategic direction to revive the Kenya National Shipping Line (KNSL) as the national carrier has been adopted.

As a member of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the United Nations agency responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution, the government is putting in place measures to implement IMO resolutions for sustainable development through green shipping.

One of the aims is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency and increased uptake of low-carbon technologies in the maritime industry.

This is because climate change affects marine life through acidification of the water bodies, changes in circulation patterns, sea-level rise and ecological changes.

Shipping accounts for an average of 2.7 per cent of the annual global CO2.

Studies project an increase of 50 to 250 per cent in the period up to 2050.

Kenya has been elected to host the Regional Maritime Technology Cooperation Centre for the African region.

The centre will promote the reduction of harmful emissions from ships.

The coastal ecosystem, with its accompanying goods and services, is worth Sh440 billion; a huge part of which can be tapped directly from marine-related tourism.

The government recognises the importance of preserving the ocean due to its impact on lives today and in future.

Local communities, who are the immediate beneficiaries of the ocean, are being sensitised on the impact of climate change and pollution to empower them to take charge in charting their future and that of generations to come.

With recent discoveries and off-shore exploration, deep-sea fishing, seaweed farming, aquaculture, offshore oil and gas extraction and the expected growth in cargo volumes, there is a need to boost maritime security.

Blue growth will promote trade, increase revenue from exports and curb unemployment.

The ocean is of utmost importance to our nation and we are proud to be part of this global initiative.

A healthy world ocean is critical to our national survival.

The World Oceans Day provides us with a unique opportunity do all we can to honour, protect, and conserve our oceans.

Ms Karigithu is Kenya's shipping and maritime affairs principal secretary

Record 15,000 candidates from 35 political parties to contest in August.

Kenyatta joins Ruto in tour of Uasin Gishu where ethnic tensions are simmering after nominations.

Visit link:

We must tap 'blue economy' for progress - Daily Nation

Last week I anticipated President Trumps shortsighted decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and predicted that his actions might provide environmentalists with a common enemy to rally against. That seems to be happening. Former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is organizing American corporations, states, cities and other institutions to commit to greenhouse gas reductions and be recognized by the U.N. as they fulfill the U.S. reduction obligations under Paris. Now all we need is a few billion dollars for renewable energy in the developing world and Trumps Rose Garden rant last week becomes truly meaningless. Bloombergs leadership and the rapid mobilization of leaders concerned about climate change demonstrates that Americas power resides both inside and outside the Washington beltway.

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement was the most straightforward part of Trumps rhetoric last week. The truly convoluted part of his talk was his misread of the economic impact of environmental regulation and his ideas about how Americas economy will be revitalized.

It is true that some of our trade deals and regulations could be better, but the world has a global economy and America has the strongest economy in the world. The rules and our trade agreements cant be that bad if we seem to be winning. This horrible, depressed, crime-ridden America the president presented in his inaugural address and again in the Rose Garden may be the view he sees from Trump Tower, but its not the reality a majority of Americans experience.

Still, enough people are suffering that it makes political sense for him to try to serve as their voice. I get his motivation. But the part that really makes no sense is his idea that a vast increase in the fossil fuel business will generate an American economic boom. It wont.

The economic future does not belong to resource extraction industries. Communities that host these businesses know what I mean. The resource extractors come, they dig, drill, pump and spread money around but also strain local services and infrastructure. Eventually they leave, and the local folks get to clean up the mess.

Theres always a good economic reason that extraction comes to an end. The price of the resource might drop, the resource becomes harder and more expensive to get to, or cheaper alternatives are discovered. For the coal business, its been fracking and natural gas that caused them pain. For coal workers, it was mountain top removal and other mechanized forms of extraction that reduced the employment in mining. It is unbelievably deceptive of the President of the United States to articulate an economic strategy that calls for the revival of these businesses. The coal miners know that they need to prepare for a different type of work. They certainly know their children need to be prepared for change.

The nature of economic life is changing and it is very important that we look forward instead of backward. The U.S. energy sector added 300,000 jobs in 2016: most were in energy efficiency and renewable energy. According to the Department of Energys U.S. Energy Employment Report:

The report also notes that 2.2 million Americans are employed, in whole or in part, in the design, installation, and manufacture of Energy Efficiency products and services, adding 133,000 jobs in 2016. Modernizing our energy system to make it more efficient and less polluting is a growing business. Coal mining is a shrinking business. President Trump is doubling down on a loser.

The energy future, like the rest of our economic future, depends on technological innovation and ingenuity. We are now in the brain based economy. Software makes more money than hardware. A century ago most of our economy and most of our labor was in the production of food, clothing and shelter. Today, less and less of our GDP is in those necessary but relatively shrinking businesses. Massive investment in education, scientific research and infrastructure would result in economic growth. Running away from environmental rules and global treaties might help a few small businesses, but in the long run will cause economic damage. The benefits of a clean environment far outweigh the costs.

As an educator, I am biased, but I believe that the economic future requires us to attract, educate and employ the worlds best minds. That requires intelligent and encouraging immigration policy, improved public schools, great universities, and great quality of life in the cities that house Americas researchers and businesses. Great quality of life means clean air, clean water, health care, safe cities, stimulating and exciting cities, along with preserved and beautiful natural spaces. Walking away from a global climate treaty, discouraging immigration, and cutting spending on science and education make it more difficult for our communities and for our nation to be competitive in the brain based economy.

Fortunately, many of Trumps plans are being countered by other parts of our government, other institutions, and his own inability to form a competent government. Congress seems to be restoring some of his science budget cuts, the courts are countering his immigration policy excesses, and nearly everyone is trying to reduce their greenhouse gases. President Trumps visible attack on the climate treaty is disheartening, but it is far from the last word on the subject.

Paris, after all, does not mandate greenhouse gas reductions, it sets voluntary targets; Americas own Clean Air Act mandates reductions in greenhouse gases. This was decided in a Supreme Court decision handed down in 2007 when George W. Bush was president. The Court was responding to a lawsuit brought by a group of state attorneys general. The U.S. Supreme Court determined at that time that greenhouse gases were dangerous air pollutants. EPA was directed to develop regulations to reduce that pollution and Trump and his EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are required to issue and enforce that regulation. Trump can withdraw from Paris, but he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. must act, but what about the rest of the world? Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. Nearly every government in the world understands that and we have seen no retreat from the climate treaty since the presidents announcement. In fact, we have seen a broad and uniform recommitment to the goals of mitigating climate change. President Trump took a symbolic act to achieve a political objective. He kept his campaign promise, largely because he and his team do not understand the climate issue or the economic opportunity presented by the transition to a renewable resource based economy. While we still do not know the long-term impact of his action, the short term impact has been to mobilize a broad segment of the U.S. and global public in support of the agreement. The Paris agreement remains intact, despite Trumps reckless action. As Bogart told Bergman at the Casablanca airport: Well always have Paris. Of course, he meant the memory of what might have been. Lets hope we do better with the planet than Bogey seemed to do with the Nazis or his love life in the movie Casablanca. I suspect we will.

Originally posted here:

We'll Always Have Paris: Trump's Impact On The Climate Agreement - HuffPost

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire. Four years later, he stood in Berlin and thundered at Mikhail Gorbachev: Tear down this wall! Of the many reasons Reagan has become a hero of the Republican Party, his willingness to face down the USSR may have been most responsible in the creation of that myth.

Thirty years later, however, the malignant vestiges of that empirethat is, Russia presided over by former KGB operative Vladimir V. Putin and his kleptocratic cronieshave become an object of profound and inexplicable affection for the Republican Party.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Or maybe not so inexplicable. A pithy exchange on Twitter (where else?) between right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter and Jason Kander, a Democratic politician from Missouri, may have explained in all of 16 words exactly why so many Republicans would look longingly towarda despotic nation beset by a lackluster mono-resource economy, an ill and aging population, a rampant heroin epidemic and a deteriorating infrastructure, not to mention opprobrium from much of the West for its human rights violations at home and support of despots abroad.

The notion that the rights love affair with Russia is predicated on a racial fantasy is not exactly new, though it has rarely been so succinctly expressed. Earlier this year, Casey Michel explained in Politico how Russias strategic support of nationalist and Christian fundamentalist movements had put it at the helm of the global Christian right:

Not only have Russian banks funded groups like Frances National Front, but Moscow has hosted international conferences on everything from neo-Nazi networking to domestic secessionists attempting to rupture the U.S. Meanwhile, American fundamentalists bent on unwinding minority protections in the U.S. have increasingly leaned on Russia for supportand for a model theyd bring to bear back home, from targeting LGBT communities to undoing abortion rights throughout the country.

Whiteness, then, is not merely a description of skin color, though it is certainly that. Rather, it is a broader vision of a theocratic society that shuns political correctness, rejects inclusivity in all its forms, erases the separation between church and state, favors expressions of corporate and military might, shuns environmentalist policies, and tolerates no dissent, especially from a limp-wristed press.

Its no surprise that, during his campaign for president, Donald J. Trump frequently praised Putin. In 2014, he tweeted, I believe Putin will continue to re-build the Russian Empire. He has zero respect for Obama or the U.S.! That same year, he said that Russia is, like, I mean, theyre really hot stuff at an event in New Hampshire. During the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Putins supposed toughness, which he contrasted to the weakness of President Barack Obama, whom he frequently branded the laughingstock of the Kremlin.

More remarkable than Trumps embrace of Russia is the fact that so many Republicans have decided to mimic his approach. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll found that the share of Republicans who had a favorable view of Putin was up sharply from 2015, nearly tripling from 12 percentto 32 percent. By contrast, Democrats, whod never liked the glum Russian leader much to begin with, liked him even less in 2017 (10 percentfavorability) than they did in 2015 (15 percent).

How much does the vision of a nationalist, autocratic state have to do with this affection? Well, its simply hard to see any other reason for the American right to embrace a longstanding adversary that shares virtually none of the values outlined by the U.S. Constitution. Not only that, but the Russian economy is based on resource extraction, petroleum especially, and has an astonishing lack of innovation. Its life expectancy is only 70, in good part because alcoholism remains rampant, especially among men. This path is plainly not where American greatness lies.

Not only that, but Coulters vision of a white Russia is predicated on myth, perhaps stemming from Putins vicious approach to Chechnya and its Muslim population or his cynical embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church. The irony is that Russia is not nearly as white as Coulter apparently wanted her Twitter followers to believe. Its ethnic population is 81 percentRussian; in comparison, Germany, the Western country that has been most open to welcoming refugees from Syria and elsewhere, is 91 percentGerman.

Russias relative diversity should not be not surprising, given that the nationis generally considered Eurasian, not European, as it straddles both Asia and Europe, bordering both Japan and Finland. It is possible Coulter was not aware of that distinction when she sent her tweet.

Moreover, demographics actually point to Russia becoming less white, not more. The Russia expert Paul Goble recently wrote that the share of ethnic Russians in the population, as a result of falling birthrates and still high death rates among working age males, will continue to fall, changing the countrys ethnic mix significantly, especially in some important regions. If the population of Russia remains stable or grows, it will be because, Goble posits, of massive immigration from Central Asia and the Caucasus and still high birthrates and relatively low death rates among the traditionally Muslim nationalities of Russia itself.

In other words, Coulters tweet wasnt just subtly racist but certifiably untrue. That, of course, is unlikely to change the mind of the right-wing flame-thrower, who has known to take an especially hard-line stance on immigration, in particular from Latin America. Earlier this spring, when Trumps proposed border wall with Mexico was on the cusp of becoming just another abandoned campaign promise, Coulter wrote on Breitbart, Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesnt build a wall.

Read the original:

Russia Is White, Right? Why Some Republicans Are Obsessed With the Kremlin - Newsweek

Theres a battle brewing between British Columbia and the federal government that could have an indelible impact on the future of Canada. It comes down to one question: Can Ottawa effectively exercise its responsibilities if the provinces refuse to recognize its authority on controversial issues?

The issue at hand is pipelines. Last fall, the Trudeau government approved Kinder Morgans Trans Mountain expansion project, which will twin an existing pipeline along a route from Alberta to Burnaby, in Metro Vancouver. The decision came after a full review of the project by the National Energy Board.

In other words, Ottawa played by the rules and approved a project of the type that the Constitution places squarely in its jurisdiction: railways, canals, hydro lines, pipelines and other infrastrcture that cross provincial boundaries.

Ottawa also has clear jurisdiction over seacoasts, navigation and shipping, which ties into issues that arise from the fact that the pipeline expansion will increase tanker traffic in Vancouver harbour and along the coast of B.C.

And Ottawa has sole jurisdiction over trade and commerce, which is what this is mostly about. Getting the crude from Albertas oil sands or any other Canadian product from any other landlocked part of the country to coastal waters where it can be loaded onto boats and shipped to foreign markets goes to the heart of Canadas ability to be a successful trader.

On top of all that, there is a clause in the Constitution that gives Ottawa jurisdiction over projects that are declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada.

So its clear. Ottawa has authority over the Trans Mountain expansion project. That pipeline is critical to Canadas resource-based economy. And it appears to have the support of Canadians and British Columbians, who in polls last fall consistently backed Ottawas decision to greenlight the project.

And yet its not clear at all. British Columbia is poised to be governed by the New Democrats with the support of the Green Party; the two party leaders have promised to use every tool available to prevent the Trans Mountain expansion.

Those tools are considerable. If the NDP and Greens form government, they will be able to undertake a bureaucratic guerrilla war against the project.

The B.C. provincial government could collude with municipal governments to deny needed construction permits, which would cause delays and raise costs for Kinder Morgan.

They can also rescind the previous Liberal governments approval of the project and set new conditions on it. And they could side with the plaintiffs in the many court challenges, 19 and counting, brought by environmental groups, municipalities and First Nations, that claim that the federal approval process was flawed.

The NDP-Greens are also armed with political clout. They are positioning themselves as the defenders of B.C.s coastal waters. And, by trying to block the export of crude oil, they claim to be on the side of the angels in the fight against climate change.

Thats a tough combo for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to punch against. He has promised that the coastline will be protected by strict rules that minimize the chances of a tanker going aground, but the possiblity of a spill can never be reduced to zero.

And while there is a solid three-fold argument for building the pipeline Canada has to continue to exist as a resource-based economy while it and the rest of the world transition away from carbon; oil sands crude will continue to be shipped even without a pipe, by rail; and pipelines are safer than rail there is no question that the product it transports will ultimately contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

There are a lot of green votes at stake for the Trudeau government in the Vancouver area. The NDP and Green members know it, and they will use it to their advantage. In the end, they could kill the project by forcing delay after delay, while Ottawa, paralyzed by a fear of alienating voters, stands by.

That must not happen. Mr. Trudeau should stick to his guns and see the project through. There is a principle at play. Simply put, one provincial government should not have a veto over Canadian trade because of its geography. This has to be a national decision and that means the federal government and federal institutions.

As Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said last week, We can't be a country that says one of its two functional coastlines is only going to do what the people who live right beside it want to do.

We would go further than that. Provincial parties should not espouse the use of clever delay tactics for the sole purpose of usurping the duly exercised authority of the federal government. Trans Mountain has the law and Parliament behind it. That may not please its opponents, but their displeasure doesnt give them the power to undermine a valid federal decision.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

Read more:

Globe editorial: On pipelines, Ottawa must have the final say - The Globe and Mail

SALEM, Ore. - Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Sen. Jeff Merkley expressed serious displeasure with President Trump's move to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate change accord.

Gov. Brown issued this statement:

"Climate change poses the greatest threat to Oregons environment, economy, and way of life. Oregon has a strong tradition of fighting climate change, and we will not back down. The consequences of climate change are already impacting our communities and threaten the long-term sustainability of our natural resource-based economies. Leading U.S. companies recognize the need to address climate change risks and opportunities through the Paris Agreement, and are wisely investing in low-carbon fuels and clean energy technologies to stay on the cutting edge of the global economy.

"It is irresponsible for the president to deny these real-world implications. But I will continue to work with leaders on the West Coast, across the country, and around the world to address the challenge of climate change. While Oregon is a small state, we can play a huge role in finding innovative solutions to preserve our natural resources, reduce carbon, and create a cleaner, and greener energy mix of the future.

Here is Sen. Merkley's comments:

This decision may be a win for Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt and those who share their extremist views, but its a loss for everyone else. If completed, Trumps withdrawal from the Paris agreement will put the United States in the company of only two other nations on earth that do not belong to the pact: Nicaragua, which believes the agreement doesnt go far enough, and Syria, which is in the midst of a horrific civil war.

The American business community, including 58 Fortune 500 CEOs, strongly supports the Paris agreement. These businesses know that withdrawing will cede American leadership on the world stage, and diminish American economic opportunity. If we dont aggressively lead the clean energy revolution, other nations will beat usand they will capture the rewards in growing jobs and prosperity.

Climate disruption is a planetary crisis, and we need every nation on the front lines of this battle. For America to retreat is a massive failure of leadership at a critical moment. An American retreat is great for the economies of China and India, and terrible for Americas economy. Donald Trump should quit damaging the American economy, and reverse this reckless and shortsighted decision.

Read the original here:

Gov. Brown, Merkley decry president's climate change move - KTVZ

Wal van Lierop is President and CEO at Chrysalix Venture Capital.

Despite a decade of policies meant to foster entrepreneurship, Canadas technology industry remains frail. The Conference Board gives Canada a D on innovation, ranking us 13th among 16 peer countries. They are surpassing Canada in income per capita, productivity and quality of social programs.

Canada is weak in innovation by choice. Id like to discuss the reasons why and propose a solution.

Our federal and provincial governments ritually pledge funding for STEM education, startup tax credits and similar initiatives. These are nice gestures, but they alone cannot improve Canadian innovation. The disconnect is in our execution. Those funds have no clear aims.

Canada is still very much a resource-based economy. The predominance of traditional industries on the TSX testifies to that. If taxpayers want a return on investment, then innovation funding should maximize the value of our national assets.

Toward that end, I propose a strategic aim: Lets become the No. 1 developer and exporter of sustainable industrial innovations. Lets transform mining, hydrocarbons and forestry rather than abandon these sources of prosperity.

Government funds that stimulate industrial innovation achieve a double payout by increasing the value of our resources and by creating high-paying tech jobs. Let me put this in perspective: The revenue per employee in the B.C. mining sector was, according to a PwC study, more than $885,000 in 2015. Compare that with B.C.s digital-media industry, which had less than $150,000 in revenue per employee.

Industrial technology could strengthen our largest resource-based companies and protect them from foreign takeovers. Yet only a tiny amount of government funding reaches technology companies focused on natural resources. Its a disappointing mismatch a result of unclear strategy and poor incentives.

Today, fund-of-fund managers oversee the governments capital (i.e. your tax money). Many earn exceptional returns. Frequently, they finance the newest mobile apps in syndication with Silicon Valley firms. These capital-light innovations can turn a quick profit. However, fund-of-fund managers often shy away from capital-intensive innovations that take longer to commercialize and scale, let alone IPO. Thus, our tax money tends to stimulate innovation abroad rather than in Canada.

I dont blame our government or fund-of-fund managers for investing outside Canada. The financial markets have little appetite for heavy-duty innovation in traditional industries. They dont yet reward companies that embrace sustainability.

Look at NRG Energy from the United States, as an example. Their attempt to fill their portfolio with renewable energy sources ended with the ousting of the chief executive officer and tumbling stocks.

The dissonance between our strategic interests and use of capital has created a big-city bubble in Canadas tech sector. While we have winners from time to time, we struggle to sustain Nortels and BlackBerries for the long haul. The few successes we do have are small and sold to U.S. owners.

Along that path to a U.S. buyout, we subsidize thousands of small companies with SR&ED tax deductions and similar programs. In the Vancouver area alone, these allow 9,000 startups to survive for 12 years or more. At least 8,000 of them would be cut off if a commercial venture capital firm were in charge. Some people call this practice occupational therapy or dub us the too nice Canadian tech industry. Others call it political currency.

Wouldnt it make sense to prune actively and only strengthen startups that have good odds and the highest potential value for Canada?

One company scaled up can produce far more jobs and opportunities than dozens of small startups combined. Canada needs to produce Googles and Facebooks in the industrial sector. Were unlikely to beat out Silicon Valley in search, advertising and social technology, but we can win in industries that accentuate our competitive advantages. We have resources that Northern California doesnt have. The surest way to keep Canadian innovation at a D is to copy and fund the Silicon Valley model.

So, lets be deliberate not just in our ideas but also in our execution. Lets support innovations that maximize our inherent strengths and offer the greatest returns to our society. Its time to pop the Canadian tech bubble and develop the right strategy for our future.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeBusiness

Excerpt from:

A strategy that will make Canadian innovation flourish - The Globe and Mail

(MGN/EJ Hersom / DoD/Xenja Santarell / CC BY 2.0)

President Donald Trump announced Thursday his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.

By abandoning the world's chief effort to slow the tide of planetary warming, Trump was fulfilling a top campaign pledge. But he was also breaking from many of America's staunches allies, who have expressed alarm about the decision.

As president, I can put no other consideration before the well being of American citizens, he said.

Local Oregon politicians shared their reactions to the president's announcement:

Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued the following statement President Trump's announced the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement:

"Climate change poses the greatest threat to Oregons environment, economy, and way of life. Oregon has a strong tradition of fighting climate change, and we will not back down. The consequences of climate change are already impacting our communities and threaten the long-term sustainability of our natural resource-based economies. Leading U.S. companies recognize the need to address climate change risks and opportunities through the Paris Agreement, and are wisely investing in low-carbon fuels and clean energy technologies to stay on the cutting edge of the global economy.

"It is irresponsible for the president to deny these real-world implications. But I will continue to work with leaders on the West Coast, across the country, and around the world to address the challenge of climate change. While Oregon is a small state, we can play a huge role in finding innovative solutions to preserve our natural resources, reduce carbon, and create a cleaner, and greener energy mix of the future.

Senator Jeff Merkley tweeted the following statements on Twitter:

Senator Ron Wyden issued this statement regarding the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Agreement:

Trumps decision to backtrack on Americas commitment to fight climate change will further damage our environment and leave Americans sicker and poorer. Almost every other country in the world knows that climate change is one of the major challenges of our time and has signed up to do something about it. The United States must be part of the solution and keep its seat at the global decision-making table.

Rejecting the Paris Agreement weakens American leadership abroad and makes it harder for U.S. businesses to compete. By reversing the United States obligation to fight climate change in partnership with the rest of the world, the Trump administration is putting a bullseye on American exporters and the jobs they support.

Trump: U.S. will withdraw from Paris climate accord, try to renegotiate

Trump says that the agreement was not about climate change but instead about other nations gaining financial advantages over the U.S.

He says that he is seeking to create a "level playing field" and establish the "highest standard of living, highest standard of environmental protection."

See more here:

Trump says withdrawing from accord is for 'wellbeing' of US, these OR reps say otherwise - KTVL