Take this to heart when voting, AmericaPlease consider the last comment of this cartoon too when voting.
Sadly, your colleagues in Queensland, Australia, didn’t do that last Saturday.
This cartoon is from The Guardian, Australia edition, 10/28/2024,
My Christmas Day has started already, ahead of yours, so I couldn’t resist.
From Euronews.next. By Camille Bello & Laura Llach
Spain has just passed a law allowing those with especially painful periods to take paid “menstrual leave” from work, in a European first.
The bill approved by Parliament on Thursday is part of a broader package on sexual and reproductive rights that includes allowing anyone 16 and over to get an abortion or freely change the gender on their ID card.
The law gives the right to a three-day “menstrual” leave of absence – with the possibility of extending it to five days – for those with disabling periods, which can cause severe cramps, nausea, dizziness and even vomiting.
The leave requires a doctor’s note, and the public social security system will foot the bill.
The law states that the new policy will help combat the stereotypes and myths that still surround periods and hinder women’s lives.
Equality Minister Irene Montero, an outspoken feminist in the leftwing government, hailed “a historic day of progress for feminist rights”.
“There will be resistance to its application, just as there has been and there will be resistance to the application of all feminist laws,” she told parliament.
“So we have to work (…) to guarantee that when this law enters into force, it will be enforced”.
“The days of (women) going to work in pain are over,” Montero said last year when she unveiled her government’s proposal.
But the road to Spain’s menstrual leave has been rocky. Politicians – including those within the ruling coalition – and trade unions have been divided over the policy, which some fear could backfire and stigmatise women in the workplace.
Worldwide, menstrual leave is currently offered only in a small number of countries including Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Korea and Zambia.
Italy flirted with the idea in 2016, proposing a bill that would have given three fully paid days off to workers who obtained medical certificates, but the proposal failed to progress before the parliamentary term ran out in 2018.
“It’s such a lightning rod for feminists,” Elizabeth Hill, an associate professor at the University of Sydney who has extensively studied menstrual leave policies worldwide, told Euronews Next.
The debates around menstrual are often intense, she said, with concern focused on whether such a policy can help or hinder women.
“Is it liberating? Are these policies that recognise the reality of our bodies at work and seek to support them? Or is this a policy that stigmatises, embarrasses, is a disincentive for employing women?”
According to the Spanish Gynaecology and Obstetrics Society, around a third of women who menstruate suffer from severe pain known as dysmenorrhea.
Symptoms include acute abdominal pain, diarrhoea, headaches and fever.
Some Socialists have voiced concern a menstrual leave could backfire against women by discouraging employers from hiring them.
“In the long term, it may be one more handicap that women have in finding a job,” Cristina Antoñanzas, deputy secretary of the UGT, a leading Spanish trade union, told Euronews Next when the draft bill was first unveiled.
“Because we all know that on many occasions we have been asked if we are going to be mothers, something that must not be asked and that men are not asked. Will the next step be to ask us if we have period pains?”
Spain’s other main trade union, Comisiones Obreras, has supported the idea of menstrual leave. But it has raised concerns over the details of the policy, and whether women would have to prove they suffer from a condition known to worsen period pain – such as endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome – to claim this menstrual leave.
“How many women are we leaving out?” Carolina Vidal, its confederal secretary for Women, Equality and Working Conditions, told Euronews Next last year.
“In many, many cases periods become unbearable and disabling, but they are not considered illnesses”.
In the end, it will be up to doctors to judge whether the pain is disabling and also how many days of sick leave would be needed.
The law states the right to a “three-day medically supervised leave, with the ability to extend to five, for those with disabling periods: severe pain, cramps, cramping, nausea, dizziness and vomiting that some women suffer every cycle”.
Menstrual leave is part of sweeping new legislation introducing new reproductive rights. Under the new laws, Spain will also roll out free feminine hygiene products in certain public facilities, such as educational institutions and prisons.
When it was first unveiled last year, the draft bill also aimed to scrap or slash VAT on specific feminine hygiene products. That provision was ultimately left out but is expected to be revived in the government’s next general budget review.
Teenagers as young as 16 will now be allowed to seek an abortion in any public hospital without needing their parent’s or legal guardian’s consent.
The law also includes a new paid prepartum leave from the 36th week of pregnancy up to the moment of birth, the provision of free contraceptives and the morning-after pill, as well as the prohibition of surrogacy, declaring the practice a form of violence against women.
I posted this article to show how rapidly things can change in a nation in the hope that changes in the opposite direction will be of a very short-lived nature and common sense will prevail in America.
Spain dropped the fascist yoke that it acquired in 1936 under Franco as late as 1973, but it continued under the stringent rules of the Catholic Church, which had supported Franco in a close relationship, even though it was abolished as the state religion in 1978. However, like Ireland, Spain became more secular over time and now only about one-third of Catholics in Spain are practising members of the church. This led abortion to be decriminalised in 1985 and further liberalised in 2010. With these additional laws, Spain has transformed into one of the most progressive countries in Europe.
I’ve been posting disappointed, cynical and perhaps even angry comments on Politics Plus since the polling booths closed. That may seem a little unfair to many Democrats who are happy the Red Wave didn’t come to fruition and election day was spared expected violence from the right. However, as seen from afar through a democratic lens, both events are not enough. We had hoped for more. I leave it to Stan Grant, an Australian analyst, to explain what the American midterms mean to a long-term ally. His article is taken in full from the ABC News site.
You can hear the sighs of relief that the anticipated red wave in the American midterm elections did not happen.
The United States has been spared a resurgent Trumpism … at least for now. The question is: why did anyone think there would be a resounding Republican triumph?
Remember the presidential election? The same pundits were predicting a blue wave. An America exhausted by the turmoil of the Trump years, they said, would swing behind the Democrats and Joe Biden.
Well, just like now, there was no wave. Yes, Biden won the presidency. But nearly 70 million people voted for Donald Trump, the highest number of votes ever for a sitting president.
America is divided. That’s the point. These midterms have just underlined it.
The US is wracked with political tribalism, cutting across fault lines of class, race and geography. So weird is American politics that in a poll before the midterms most Americans believed the Democratic Party, not the Trump Republicans, is the more extreme.
America is so unruly. So apparently ungovernable that some have even wondered if the Union itself will hold. At their most breathless, prophets of doom have warned of civil war.
Of course, America has been here before. It has actually had a civil war. In the 1960s the United States was torn apart by political assassinations, riots, racism and economic strife. In the 1970s it weathered Watergate and the corruption of the Nixon presidency.
America can always rebound. It is still a beacon for so many. At its best it remains a dazzling place. But equally the past 50 years may just prove that America’s unravelling is long and deep.
Those breathing a little easier now need to ask themselves what they are celebrating. A Biden reprieve? The likelihood of another Biden term at the next presidential election? What is there to be relieved about in an ailing nation where far too many have abandoned hope?
Biden has not arrested American decline. Inflation is rampant. The economy is shrinking. The poor are getting poorer. Life expectancy is decreasing. Americans have less faith in democracy, not more.
When Biden took power he promised to re-energise the country. America would build things again. It would regain its moral core. It would lead the world, not shrink from leadership. America is back, said Biden.
But what has happened? Serious questions are being asked about Bidenomics: his stimulus cash splash only fuelled inflation. His America is more protectionist. He urges Americans to buy American; laws promote the use of American iron and steel and hands out subsidies to local manufacturers in industries like electric vehicles.
All of that might boost local jobs. But analysts warn there is a downside. Protectionism hurts other nations. It inspires tit for tat – beggar thy neighbour – economic retaliation.
The Economist newspaper recently warned of increasing red tape, of higher prices for goods, dulling Biden’s “go-green” environmental push. It warned that such measures tempts other countries into China’s orbit.
The Economist wrote: “Rather than putting up barriers, America should reap the benefits of openness.”
Abroad, Biden’s first two years in office were marked by the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan. The most powerful military in the world humbled by the Taliban.
Yes, Biden has sought to rally democracies. He has thrown his support – but not troops on the ground – behind Ukraine in its defence against Russian invasion.
Biden says don’t bet against America. But the jury is out on that.
Putin’s Russia is not Xi Jinping’s China. There is a greater threat looming: war over Taiwan. Biden has been confused and confusing in his response. He pledges that the US will defend Taiwan only for the White House to have to walk back his words.
China, not Russia, looms over the 21st century. It is on track to usurp the US as the biggest economy in the world. Even as its economy slows it is still growing at around 4 per cent while America stands on the brink of recession with growth at 1 per cent.
Joe Biden will now sit down with Xi Jinping, a meeting of the world’s two most powerful leaders. Both leaders need the meeting. Both face headwinds. But Xi Jinping believes he needs America less than America needs China.
For certain, Biden cannot dismiss Xi. The unipolar world – the American century – looks to be over. The era of great power competition is upon us again as the Chinese ask: Can two tigers live on the same mountain?
Xi Jinping is a wild card. President for life. He dresses in military fatigues and warns of war. But Xi is not Vladimir Putin. He cannot easily be put in the deep freeze and Biden must talk with him.
A rapprochement is too much to expect but new Cold Warriors who think China can be isolated, who imagine a showdown with China, flirt with catastrophe.
This is the backdrop to the midterm elections: war, the threat of war, economic strife, an ailing America and a nation far from the so-called shining city on the hill.
What do the midterms tell us? Donald Trump is weakened but it is too soon to write him off. He still has a grip on the Republican Party.
Trump is a carnival act. An American Barnum and Bailey creation. He’s personally odious and politically dangerous. He has concocted conspiracies. Incited insurrection. Exploited racism. Bragged of his misogyny and sexual predatory.
Yet he speaks to the dying heart of the country. His vision is American carnage, not American dreams. And right now, for too many Americans, that sounds right.
After the elections American politics faces gridlock. Neither party commands the country. But the midterms were not just about Democrats and Republicans. They were about America.
And that means they were about all of us.
Stan Grant is the ABC’s international affairs analyst and presenter of Q+A on Thursday at 8.30pm. He also presents China Tonight on Monday at 9:35pm on ABC TV, and Tuesday at 8pm on the ABC News Channel.
Of course we wish you no blue screens in the future, but it’s the only knitted laptop image I could find.
Below you’ll find the best piece of advice to Biden, based on historical facts, I’ve seen around. It is written by Andrew Bacevich, March 2, 2022 by TomDispatch
Given America’s propensity to start wars and be tough in someone else’s backyard and the need to be seen as the global leader, especially after TFG, the pressure on President Biden to interfere must be mounting and with it the risk of starting WW III. Andrew Bacevich is acutely aware of this and has given Biden his advice in the following article which I copied in full so as not to take anything away from it.
Dear Mr. President:
I send greetings from the other side—and no, I don’t mean the other side of the aisle. I refer to the place where old politicians go to make amends for their sins.
Apart from our shared Catholicism and affinity for sunglasses, I suspect you and I don’t have a lot in common. Actually, that may not quite be true. After all, your family and mine have both experienced more than our share of tragedy and you and I both did make it to the top rung of American politics.
Forgive me for being blunt, Joe—may I call you Joe?—but after more than a year in office your administration clearly needs help. Having had ample time to reflect on my own abbreviated stay in the White House, I thought I might share some things I learned, especially regarding foreign policy. Sadly, you seem intent on repeating some of my own worst mistakes. A course change is still possible, but there’s no time to waste. So please listen up.
I’m guessing that you may be familiar with this timeless text: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
I no longer have any idea what prompted my aide and speechwriter Ted Sorensen to pen those immortal words or how exactly they found their way into my inaugural address. No matter, though. People then thought it expressed some profound truth—a Zen-like aphorism with an Ivy League pedigree.
Its implicit subtext, though, totally escaped attention: If negotiations don’t yield the desired results, it’s time to get tough. And that turned out to be problematic.
Fearing Fear Itself?
Candor obliges me to admit that, politically speaking, my administration made good use of fear itself. If my run for the White House had an overarching theme, it was to scare the bejesus out of the American people. And once in office, fearmongering formed an essential part of my presidency. The famous Jack Kennedy wit and charisma was no more than a side dish meant to make the panic-inducing main course more palatable.
Here’s me at the National Press Club early in the 1960 campaign, sounding the alarm about “increasingly dangerous, unsolved, long postponed problems” that would “inevitably explode” during the next president’s watch. KABOOM! Chief among those problems, I warned, was “the growing missile gap, the rise of Communist China, the despair of the underdeveloped nations, the explosive situations in Berlin and in the Formosa [i.e., Taiwan] Strait, [and] the deterioration of NATO.”
Note the sequencing. Item number one is that nuclear “missile gap,” with its implications of an Armageddon lurking just around the corner. It was my own invention and, if I do say so myself, a stroke of pure political genius. Of course, like the “bomber gap” that preceded it by a few years, no such missile gap actually existed. When it came to nukes and the means to deliver them, we were actually way ahead of the Soviets.
President Eisenhower knew that the missile gap was a load of malarky. So did his vice president, Dick Nixon, the poor sap. But they couldn’t say so out loud without compromising classified intelligence.
Even today, people still treat my inaugural address—”The torch has been passed,” etc.—as if it were sacred scripture. But when it came to putting the nation on notice, the Kennedy-Sorensen fright machine really hit its stride barely a week later during my appearance before a joint session of Congress.
“No man entering upon this office,” I said with a carefully calibrated mixture of grace and gravitas, “could fail to be staggered upon learning—even in this brief 10-day period—the harsh enormity of the trials through which we must pass in the next four years.” Then came a generous dose of Sorensen’s speechwriting magic:
“Each day the crises multiply. Each day their solution grows more difficult. Each day we draw nearer the hour of maximum danger, as weapons spread and hostile forces grow stronger. I feel I must inform the Congress that our analyses over the last ten days make it clear that—in each of the principal areas of crisis—the tide of events has been running out and time has not been our friend.”
For eight years, Ike had been asleep at the switch. Now, in a mere 10 days as chief executive, I had grasped the harrowing magnitude of the dangers facing the nation. Time running out! The enemy growing stronger! The hour of maximum danger approaching like a runaway freight train!
But not to worry. With a former PT-boat skipper at the helm, assisted by the likes of Mac Bundy, Bob McNamara, Max Taylor, brother Bobby, and a whole crew of Harvard graduates, the Republic was in good hands. That was my message, anyway.
Okay, Joe, now let me come clean. In the months after that, we hit a few bumps in the road. Having promised action, we did act with vigor, but in ways that may not have been particularly judicious. (Had I lived long enough to finish my term and win a second one—that was the plan, after all—things might have been put right.)
So, yes, the CIA’s Bay of Pigs Cuban debacle of April 1961 was an epic snafu, although as much Ike’s fault as my own. Viewed in hindsight, my escalation of our military involvement in Vietnam, that distant “frontier” of the Cold War—thousands of U.S. troops test-driving the latest counterinsurgency theories—wasn’t exactly the Best and Brightest’s best idea. And the less said about my administration’s complicity in the murder of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem the better. That was not our best day either.
You didn’t know Bobby, but when my brother got a bit in his mouth, he was unstoppable. So I will admit that he got more than slightly carried away with Operation Mongoose, the failed CIA program aimed at assassinating Fidel Castro and sabotaging the Cuban Revolution.
If given the chance to do it over again, I also might think twice about ordering the deployment of 1,000 Minuteman land-based ICBMs, a classic illustration of Cold War “overkill,” driven more by domestic politics than any strategic calculus. Mind you, the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command was lobbying for 10,000 ICBMs so it could have been worse! (In the things-never-change category, I hear that your administration is quietly pursuing a $1.7-trillion upgrade of the U.S. nuclear strike force. Does that form part of your intended legacy?)
The Limits of Fear
Learn from our mistakes, Joe, but pay special attention to what we got right. Yes, fear led us to do some mighty stupid things. On occasion, though, fear became a spur to prudence and even wisdom. In fact, on two occasions overcoming fear enabled me to avert World War III. And that’s not bragging, that’s fact.
The first occurred in August 1961 when the East German government, with the approval of the Kremlin, began erecting the barrier that would become known as the Berlin Wall. The second took place in October 1962 during the famous Cuban Missile Crisis.
On the first occasion, I did nothing, which was exactly the right thing to do. Doing nothing kept the peace.
As long as East Berliners (and by extension all East Germans) could enter West Berlin and so flee to the West, that city would remain, in Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s words, “a bone in the throat” of the Communist bloc. Dividing Berlin dislodged that bone. Problem solved. Khrushchev got what he wanted and so did I. As a result, the likelihood that Berlin-induced tensions could trigger a great power conflagration eased markedly. True, the outcome might not have pleased East Berliners, but they weren’t my chief concern.
On the second occasion, I employed skills I learned from my father Joe. Whatever his reputation as an appeasement-inclined isolationist before World War II, my dad knew how to cut a deal. So while Mac, Bob, Max and the rest of the so-called ExComm were debating whether to just bomb Cuba or bomb and then invade the island, I called an end-around.
Using Bobby to open a back-channel to Khrushchev, I negotiated a secret compromise. I promised to pull U.S. nuclear missiles out of Turkey and Italy and pledged that the United States would not invade Cuba. In return, Khrushchev committed to removing Soviet offensive weapons from that island. As a result, both sides (along with the rest of humanity) got a rain check on a possible nuclear holocaust.
Let me emphasize, Joe, that the theme common to both episodes wasn’t toughness. Both times, I set aside the question of fault—the U.S. not exactly being an innocent party in either instance—in favor of identifying the terms of a resolution. That meant conceding their side had legitimate concerns we could ill-afford to ignore.
This crucially important fact got lost in the grandstanding that followed. I’ll bet you remember this comment, reputedly from my secretary of state Dean Rusk, about the negotiations with the Soviets over Cuba: “We’re eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked.” That invented quote supposedly captured the essence of the showdown over Cuba. The truth, however, was that Khrushchev and I both stared into the abyss and jointly decided to back away.
As for Berlin, Ted Sorensen wrote me a great speech to give there (“Ich bin ein Berliner,” etc.). In it, I pretended to be unhappy with the Wall, when in truth that structure allowed me to sleep well at night. And, of course, my memorable star-turn in Berlin created a precedent for several of my successors to stage their own photo-ops with the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop. (Don’t count on Kyiv offering a similar opportunity, Joe.)
You’ll never get me to acknowledge this on the record, but in both Berlin and Cuba I opted for “appeasement”—a derogatory term for avoiding war—over confrontation. Not for a second have I ever regretted doing so.
Just Say No
You may be wondering by now what any of this has to do with you and the fix you find yourself in today. Quite a lot, I think. Hear me out.
I inherited a Cold War in full swing. You seem to be on the verge of embarking on a new cold war, with China and Russia filling in for, well, the Soviet Union and China.
I urge you to think carefully before making the leap into such an unmourned past. Whatever your political advisers may imagine, displays of presidential toughness aren’t what our nation needs right now. You’ve extricated us from the longest war in U.S. history—a courageous and necessary decision, even if abysmally implemented. The last thing the United States needs is a new war, whether centered on Ukraine, the island of Taiwan, or anyplace in between. Military confrontation will drive a stake through the heart of your “Build Back Better” bill and kill any hopes for meaningful domestic reform. And it may also boost your predecessor’s prospects for making a comeback, a depressing thought if ever there was one.
You probably caught this recent headline in the Washington Post: “With or without war, Ukraine gives Biden a new lease on leadership.” The implication: perceived toughness on your part will pay political dividends.
Don’t believe it for a second, Joe. An armed conflict stemming from the Ukraine crisis is likely to destroy your presidency and much else besides. The same can be said about a prospective war with China. Let me be blunt: the leadership we need today is akin to what the nation needed when I steered a course away from war in Berlin and Cuba.
And please don’t fall for the latest propaganda about growing “gaps” between our own military capabilities and those of potential enemies. Take it from me, when it comes to endangering our security both China and Russia trail well behind our military-industrial-congressional complex.
“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” A nice turn of phrase that. Damned if it doesn’t turn out to be a sentiment to govern by as well.
Joe, if I can be of any further help in these tough times, don’t hesitate to call. You know where to find me.
Sincerely,
Jack
Andrew J. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. Bacevich is the author of “America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History“ (2017). He is also editor of the book, “The Short American Century“ (2012), and author of several others, including: “Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country” (2014, American Empire Project); “Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War” (2011); “The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War” (2013), and “The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II
Mitch Dormont
COP26 Day 12 | It’s finally crunch time
Euronews Green delivers a Special COP26 email to my mailbox every day during the two weeks it is running (01-12 November 2021). I’ll publish it in its entirety for those who are interested. This is the ninth in the series.
COP26 was due to wrap at 7pm CET today but there is still no white smoke for a final agreement as this newsletter goes to publication. If the almost 200 countries involved in the talks are unable to strike a deal this evening, it is likely COP26 will go into overtime.
A new draft decision published early this morning appeared to water down the language from the previous text calling to end all use of coal and phase out fossil fuel subsidies completely. While the change has sparked criticism from climate activists, some conceded that the draft text at least had the merit of retaining a mention to fossil fuels for the first time in decades of UN climate talks.
The draft cover deal has also retained a core request for countries to set more ambitious climate targets next year. But this request appears to use weaker language than the previous draft, saying the upgraded pledges should take into account “different national circumstances.”
On the positive side, many observers find the new text stronger on climate finance. “We’ve moved from richer nations largely ignoring the pleas of developing countries for promised finance to tackle climate change, to the start of recognition that their calls should be met,” said Greenpeace chief Jennifer Morgan.
“A small number of key issues remain which require our urgent collective attention,” said COP26 chairman Alok Sharma this afternoon as he urged “a final injection of can-do spirit” to deliver on an ambitious climate deal.
Looking ahead, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates will host the next COPs in 2022 and 2023 respectively, following announcements in Glasgow yesterday. An Egyptian official said the North African country would hold the next climate talks “on behalf of Africa.”
In case you weren’t able to follow along on Thursday, here are five key takeaways from Day 11.
The change in wording suggests a shift away from unconditional demands that some fossil fuel exporting nations have objected to.
Read more
Ecocide can literally be translated as “home-kill,” making clear its violence and absurdity. It refers to the destruction humans knowingly do to the environment, from deforestation to ocean plastic pollution. So why is it legal?
Read more
In the third episode of Euronews Green’s new video series Low Impact Living, we speak with adventurer and filmmaker James Levelle about being a ‘river nomad’.
Read more
COP26 Day 11 | ‘Not there yet’
Euronews Green delivers a Special COP26 email to my mailbox every day during the two weeks it is running (01-12 November 2021). I’ll publish it in its entirety for those who are interested. This is the eighth in the series.
Waves of tentative optimism were sweeping through COP26 today after the US and China announced a bilateral deal to redouble their climate efforts.
The joint statement issued by Washington and Beijing called for “enhanced climate action in the 2020s”, including a new, stronger emission cuts target in 2025 and a pledge by China to follow the US lead in slashing methane emissions.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and others hailed it as “an important step in the right direction.” But some analysts thought the deal “lacked meat” on concrete commitments besides those on methane.
Whether or not this spirit of cooperation will be reflected in the final agreement of COP26 is another story. Difficult negotiations involving almost 200 countries continued in Glasgow after a draft cover deal was released yesterday.
“We’re not there yet. There is still much more work to be done,” said COP26 chairman Alok Sharma as he briefed delegates on the progress of the talks, urging another “gear shift” in the final hours of the summit.
The UK presidency said it planned on publishing the next draft of the cover deal overnight, with a new meeting of ministers planned for tomorrow morning.
COP26 is due to end on Friday evening, but an extension has not been ruled out.
In other news, Denmark and Costa Rica launched an ambitious alliance today to phase out coal and gas. Six full members, France, Greenland, Ireland, Quebec, Sweden and Wales also joined the group known as the ‘Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance‘.
Campaigners hailed the move as a “turning point” while urging more countries to join.
“The creation of this alliance puts to shame claims of climate leadership among countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, and Canada, all of which have yet to answer this simple question: Where is your plan to stop producing the fossil fuels that are driving the climate crisis?” asked Romain Ioualalen of Oil Change International.
In case you weren’t able to follow along on Wednesday, here are five takeaways from Day 10.
Deforestation in Australia: a wanton assault on wildlife – in pictures
More than 100 nations including Australia have signed up to stop or reverse deforestation by 2030. The pact, hailed as one of the main achievements of COP26, put the spotlight on an issue that combines carbon emissions and threatened species. These images reveal some of the shocking impacts of deforestation.
(From: The Canopy, Greenpeace Australia Pacific)
A “first of its kind” alliance of governments has committed to phasing out the production of oil and gas. Led by Costa Rica and Denmark, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) saw six members join.
Read more
British people trust local councils more than the government when it comes to taking action on climate change, a new survey has revealed.
Read more
A Canadian woman has become the first patient in the world to be diagnosed as suffering from ‘climate change’, after she developed breathing difficulties following a historic heatwave. But what are her symptoms?
Read more
