The COP26 Glasgow summit was probably disappointing with little to show by way of policy progress. The conference president, Alok Sharma, noted: “We can say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 (degrees Celsius) within reach, but its pulse is weak.” If this is the state of climate politics, it is depressing. Post Paris, aggressive decarbonization was supposed to be up and running. And the best we can say after the Glasgow summit is that it is alive!
Glasgow did move the policy needle a bit. Countries agreed on new rules for carbon trading, tackling methane emission, curbing deforestation, and phasing down coal (although ironically, coal consumption is up this year). In addition, developed countries promised to provide $100 billion annual climate aid between 2021 and 2025.
Did Glasgow influence U.S. climate policy? It neither accelerated nor derailed Biden’s climate agenda. The reason is that climate politics is increasingly local. This is not to say that global climate conferences are a waste of time and resources. They shine the spotlight on climate issues and increase their salience. These conferences also motivate politicians (who probably do not want to look bad among their peers) to make climate pledges. For some, a weak pledge is superior to no pledge. For others, weak pledges demobilize the climate movement by creating an illusion of policy progress.
What Did Biden Hope to Achieve at Glasgow?
Biden’s stated objective was to reclaim U.S. leadership on global climate policy. Of course, it is not clear what the U.S. gains by exercising this leadership? Vanity? A nostalgia for post-cold war Pax Americana?
And it is certainly not clear why U.S. leadership would further the global climate agenda. Does the U.S. have the financial or coercive power to motivate other countries? Is the U.S. the shining light that guides the world on climate issues?
The brutal truth is that the world has moved on without U.S. climate leadership. China leads in renewable technologies and the European Union in policy innovation. America’s economic and coercive power is declining, as demonstrated in the huge budgetary deficits and the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
And its moral power – give us a break! Domestically, the U.S. has made modest progress in climate policy. Unfortunately for Democrats, blaming Trump for climate problems no longer works. Biden’s own party held up the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the House of Representatives, which provides substantial funding for climate projects.
Biden’s second objective probably was to reassure his domestic base about his commitment to climate issues. Chinese leader Xi Jinping did not attend the Glasgow meeting with little domestic backlash. Imagine the domestic backlash if Biden stayed home!
So, Biden attended along with a sizeable U.S. delegation. He said the right things and in the right tone. But is this sufficient to satisfy the U.S. climate movement which wants to see Biden deliver on the climate promises made during the campaign? The reality is that intra-party differences, the fight between the progressives and the moderates, is derailing progress on climate policy. The failure to persuade Democrats to implement his climate agenda undermines Biden’s international and domestic credibility as a climate champion.
Intra-Party Squabbles and the Virginia Election Shock
Historically, U.S. presidents have exercised the bully pulpit power to mobilize legislators behind their policy agendas. But this requires the President to enjoy high levels of public support. And citizens probably support the President, who they perceive to be following the right policies and is able to deliver on them.
After a strong start, Biden has lost public support. As per RealClear politics, his net approval (approval-disapproval) has fallen by almost 30% points: from positive 20.3% 0n January 28 to negative 10.7% on November 27.
Democrats’ loss in Virginia and a near loss in New Jersey gubernatorial races have further undermined Biden’s image as a leader who can get things done. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) noted: “The voters of Virginia and the voters of America gave us the presidency, the Senate and the House. They expected us to produce.” Indeed, within a few days of the Virginia election shock, the House passed the stalled bipartisan infrastructure bill. Arguably, Biden’s climate credentials in Glasgow and at home would have been stronger, had the House passed this bill earlier. But Biden’s own party denied him this opportunity.
Biden has another signature issue, the Build Back Better (BBB) bill, which has been passed in the House and is being considered in the Senate. This provides an additional $555 billion for climate projects. Does Biden have the political muscle to persuade Democrats to pass it? The problem is that Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Sinema (D-AZ) want cutbacks which the House Progressives might not agree to. This will be the second litmus test of Biden’s leadership and legislative skills.
Enter Inflation and Gas Prices
Over the summer, many suggested that inflation is temporary. Very few do so now. While scholars debate what caused it, inflation will weaken Biden’s Presidency. Americans have become accustomed to a low inflation economy with stable prices. Inflation is already affecting real household incomes as people pay more for electricity and for gas. For example, the average U.S. gasoline prices have increased by 50% since last year: from $2.27 per gallon to $3.40 per gallon.
How has Biden responded? With panic and confusion. He has asked OPEC countries to increase oil production and has authorized releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The deeper problem is that the climate movement implicitly promised a painless transition to a decarbonized economy. Yet, there will be pain, be it in terms of losing fossil fuel jobs or higher energy prices. Biden clearly did not prepare Americans for this inconvenient truth. The insistence on reducing fossil fuel production at home while asking for increased production abroad invites accusations of policy inconsistency from Republicans, blue-collar labor unions, and fossil fuel communities.
Overall, the U.S. climate policy is in a bit of turbulence. Inflation, COVID, the Afghanistan fiasco, rising urban crime, and supply chain shortages are contributing to Biden’s unpopularity. Infighting among Democrats conveys the image of a “do nothing” party, to use Truman’s famous words. Democrats have about 11 months until the midterms, when Republicans will probably win back the House. This means that the window to make legislative progress on climate policy is slowly closing. Does Biden have the political muscle to compel Democrats to focus on their agreements and not play up the disagreements on climate policy? This probably is the key issue to watch for until the November 2022 midterm elections.
Populist politics lost support globally during the pandemic, research finds – CNBC
Populist parties and politicians lost support all over the world during the coronavirus pandemic, a survey of more than half a million people has found.
Published Tuesday by Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy, the study had more than half a million participants across 109 countries. The research team has been monitoring participants’ political attitudes since 2020.
According to the report, there are clear signs that the so-called “populist wave” — which saw radical and anti-establishment leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, rise to power — could be diminishing.
The mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis by populist leaders, a desire for stability and a decline in polarizing attitudes were swaying public opinion away from populist sentiment, researchers said. Populist leaders were also considered to be less trustworthy as sources of Covid-related information than their centrist counterparts, the poll found.
The pandemic prompted a shift toward technocratic politics, the paper said, which bolstered trust in governments and experts such as scientists.
“The story of politics in recent years has been the emergence of anti-establishment politicians who thrive on the growing distrust of experts,” Roberto Foa, the report’s lead author, said in a press release Tuesday. “From [Turkey’s] Erdogan and [Brazil’s] Bolsonaro to the ‘strong men’ of Eastern Europe, the planet has experienced a wave of political populism. Covid-19 may have caused that wave to crest.”
Foa added that support for anti-establishment parties had collapsed worldwide in a way that wasn’t being seen for more “mainstream” politicians.
Co-author Xavier Romero-Vidal added that the pandemic had created “a sense of shared purpose that may have reduced the political polarization we’ve seen over the last decade.”
“This could help explain why populist leaders are struggling to mobilise support,” he said.
Between the spring of 2020 and the final quarter of 2021, populist leaders have seen an average approval rating decline of 10 percentage points, the study found. In Europe, the proportion of people intending to vote for a populist party fell by an average of 11 percentage points to 27% during the same period.
While European support for incumbent parties increased during early lockdowns, the continent’s governing populist parties — including Italy’s Five Star Movement and Hungary’s Fidesz — experienced the largest declines in support.
Opposition populist parties also lost support during the pandemic, while “mainstream” opposition parties gained supporters.
Approval of the way governments handled the Covid crisis also showed rising skepticism toward populist leaders’ competence. In June 2020, public approval of how countries with populist leaders had handled the pandemic was an average 11 percentage points lower than approval of countries with centrist governments. By the end of 2020, the gap had widened to 16 points.
Statements associated with populism, such as a dislike for “corrupt elites” and a desire for the “will of the people” to be obeyed, also saw a decline in support, the report found. The number of people saying they agreed with similar statements fell by around 10 percentage points in Italy, the U.K. and France between 2019 and 2021.
Meanwhile, researchers found that political “tribalism” — signaled by party supporters expressing a “strong dislike” of those who voted for opposing politicians — had declined in most countries. In the U.S., however, this so-called tribalism had not abated.
Lack of faith in democracy
Despite the findings, researchers said that the decline in populist support had not led to greater faith in liberal democracy.
While trust in governments steadily climbed throughout the pandemic, rising by an average of 3.4 percentage points across the world’s democratic nations, faith in democracy as a political system plateaued.
“Satisfaction with democracy has recovered only slightly since the post-war nadir of 2019, and is still well below the long-term average,” Foa said. “Some of the biggest declines in democratic support during the pandemic were seen in Germany, Spain and Japan — nations with large elderly populations particularly vulnerable to the virus.”
In the U.S., the number of participants who considered democracy a bad way to run their country more than doubled from 10.5% in 2019 to 25.8% in 2021.
The research team found that globally, many individuals instead favored technocratic sources of authority, such as allowing experts to make policy decisions.
By the summer of 2020, the belief that experts should be allowed to make decisions “according to what they think best for the country” had risen 14 points to 62% in Europe and 8 points to 57% in the United States.
US senators promise solidarity and weapons for Ukraine in warning to Putin
A bipartisan group of United States senators promised solidarity and weapons on a visit to Kyiv on Monday while warning Russian President Vladimir Putin against launching a new military offensive against Ukraine.
Kyiv and its Western allies have sounded the alarm after Russia massed tens of thousands of troops near Ukraine’s borders and pressed the United States for security guarantees, including a block on Ukraine joining the NATO alliance.
Russia denies planning a new military offensive.
The United States has been Ukraine’s most powerful backer in its standoff with Moscow after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the outbreak of the war in eastern Ukraine.
“I think Vladimir Putin has made the biggest mistake of his career in underestimating how courageously the people of Ukraine will fight him if he invades,” Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters.
“And we will impose crippling economic sanctions, but more important we will give the people of Ukraine the arms, lethal arms they need to defend their lives and livelihoods,” he said after the delegation met President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
These weapons could include Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger missiles, small arms and boats, he said.
“And so our message is: there will be consequences if he chooses to violate the sanctity of this democracy,” Senator Amy Klobuchar added.
(Reporting by Sergiy Karazy and Matthias Williams; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
Poroshenko, ex-President, Returns to Ukraine, Roiling Politics – The New York Times
Petro O. Poroshenko, a former president, returned to Kyiv on Monday facing possible arrest, adding internal political turmoil to a threat of Russian invasion.
KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s former president and a leading opposition figure, Petro O. Poroshenko, returned Monday to Kyiv, where he faced possible arrest on charges of treason, adding internal political turmoil to the mounting threat of a Russian invasion.
Mr. Poroshenko led Ukraine from 2014 until 2019, when he was soundly defeated by his rival, Volodymyr Zelensky, the current president. Mr. Poroshenko’s return escalates their long-running feud and focuses attention on Ukraine’s fractious domestic politics, which analysts and critics say is a perilous distraction as the Kremlin masses troops at its border.
Since Mr. Zelensky took power, his government has questioned Mr. Poroshenko as a witness in a raft of criminal cases that he claims are politically motivated. On Monday he said he was under investigation in more than 120 separate cases. Police in the past month have also searched the apartments of members of his political party.
The charges of treason and supporting terrorism stem from his policy as president of allowing the purchase of coal from mines in areas in eastern Ukraine held by Russian-backed separatists, for use in factories in government-controlled territory.
He has said it was a necessary compromise to avoid economic collapse, and denied benefiting personally from any of the deals.
Mr. Poroshenko left Ukraine last month, saying that he had meetings elsewhere in Europe. Prosecutors say he left to avoid a court hearing. But he later announced he would return to Ukraine to face charges, and arrived early Monday at Zhuliani airport in Kyiv.
His hearing lasted all day and into the night without a decision on whether he would be arrested, and the court eventually said a ruling would come on Wednesday.
Mr. Zelensky, a former comedian, scored a landslide victory over Mr. Poroshenko two years ago, running as an outsider to politics who would fight corruption and uproot the entrenched interests of Ukraine’s political class.
But Mr. Zelensky’s popularity has since slumped. Opinion polls today show only a slight advantage in a potential future election against Mr. Poroshenko, who is now a member of Parliament in the European Solidarity party.
Mr. Poroshenko retains a base of support in Ukrainian nationalist politics, particularly in the country’s western regions, which want closer ties with Europe. He has clashed with Mr. Zelensky over the direction of Ukraine’s future, and has criticized him for what he claims is giving ground in peace negotiations with Russia to resolve the war in eastern Ukraine.
His appearance in the capital where he once governed comes after a week of mostly futile negotiations between Russia and the West seeking a solution to tense disagreements over the security of Eastern Europe, which has led to new fears that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could soon order a military offensive.
In an interview before his return to Ukraine, Mr. Poroshenko said that his arrest might help Mr. Zelensky sideline a rival but that the political instability would play into Mr. Putin’s hands.
“He wants to undermine the stability in Ukraine,” Mr. Poroshenko said of Mr. Putin. “He analyzes two versions: One version is a military aggression through the Ukrainian-Russian or Ukrainian-Belarusian border. The second is just to undermine the stability inside Ukraine, and in this way just stop Ukraine from our future membership in NATO and in the E.U.”
In Kyiv, opinions differed on whether the threat of an arrest was just another maneuver in Ukraine’s typically byzantine politics at home, or something more ominous related to the Russian threat. Polls have consistently shown Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Poroshenko to be Ukraine’s most popular politicians.
Some analysts suggested that Mr. Zelensky might be seizing on the distraction of the Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border to sideline an opponent, or that he hoped to tamp down possible opposition protests if he is forced to make unpopular concessions to Moscow to avoid an invasion.
“Maybe he thinks that with forces on the border, Ukrainians won’t protest” an arrest of the opposition leader, said Volodymyr Yermolenko, editor in chief of Ukraine World, a journal covering politics. If so, he said, it is a risky move.
“With the situation on the border, when everybody is yelling, ‘There will be a war,’ it’s very strange,” Mr. Yermolenko said of the spectacle of Ukraine’s two leading politicians squabbling despite the existential threat to their country. “It just seems ridiculous.”
Mr. Zelensky’s aides have said that the charges against Mr. Poroshenko are justified and that courts have already issued arrest warrants for others accused in the same case, including a prominent pro-Russian politician in Ukraine, Viktor Medvedchuk. They have said the courts, not the government, decided the timing of a possible arrest and other actions, including the freezing of Mr. Poroshenko’s assets earlier this month.
Mr. Poroshenko offered no evidence of a Russian hand in the political turmoil and described internal Ukrainian feuds as the most likely cause of the legal pressure he faced. But he said Mr. Zelensky might hope to win concessions from Russia by arresting a politician aligned with the nationalist wing of Ukrainian politics.
“I am absolutely confident this is a very important gift to Putin,” Mr. Poroshenko said. “Maybe with this gift he wanted to launch a negotiation with Putin, as a precondition.”
After massing tens of thousands of soldiers on Ukraine’s border through the fall, Russia demanded last month that the United States and NATO pull back forces from countries in Eastern Europe and guarantee that Ukraine not join the Western alliance.
Diplomatic talks last week with Russia ended inconclusively, and Russian officials now say they are awaiting a written response to their demands from the United States.
As a contingency, in case the Western diplomacy fails, Ukraine has also been quietly pursuing talks with Russia and proposed a bilateral meeting between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin. On Friday, the Ukrainian presidential chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, suggested a three-way video conference with the Russian and Ukrainian leaders and President Biden.
Understand the Escalating Tensions Over Ukraine
The feud between the current and former presidents is seen as mostly personal, rather than ideological. Mr. Zelensky, former officials have said, was stung by Mr. Poroshenko’s attacks during the presidential campaign in 2019. Mr. Poroshenko’s government in 2017 also banned broadcasts of one of Mr. Zelensky’s most popular comedic television shows, as one of the actors was accused of supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which would be a violation of Ukrainian law.
The feud between the two men continued through the fall and winter, even as Russian forces massed at the border.
“The Russian threat didn’t stop them,” said Orysia Lutsevych, head of the Ukraine program at Chatham House in London.
One motivation for the arrest, she said, may be Mr. Zelensky’s plans to run for a second term in 2024 on a record of removing the country’s wealthy businessmen, known as oligarchs, from politics. Mr. Poroshenko owns a chocolate and candy company.
But the United States government has warned of a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine within weeks or months. It was a point hinted at by Britain’s ambassador to Ukraine, Melinda Simmons, who pointed out the inconvenient timing of the feud in a statement on Monday.
“All political leaders in Ukraine need to unite against Russian aggression right now,” she wrote. “So important at this time not to lose sight of this.”
Novak Djokovic sponsor Lacoste to review Australian events 'as soon as possible' – National Post
iPhone 13 doesn't support long-time 'Phone Noise Cancellation' feature – MobileSyrup
Athletics Canada CEO David Bedford facing complaints over Twitter posts – CBC Sports
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
News15 hours ago
Black and Racialized Artists, Musicians and Producers Join Forces For THE FREEDOM MARCHING PROJECT
Art14 hours ago
Artists Invited To Enter Artwork In Florida Strawberry Festival Fine Art Show – Osprey Observer
Business15 hours ago
Markets split on BoC decision as business survey, inflation loom – BNN
News15 hours ago
National Gaming on Capital Hill
Science12 hours ago
Mars Was Likely A Cold, Wet World 3 Billion Years Ago – IFLScience
Sports17 hours ago
Prescott on Cowboys fans throwing debris at refs: 'Credit to them' – theScore
Art14 hours ago
Citi's Precious Art Collection Should Stay in Mexico, AMLO Says – BNN
News7 hours ago
The latest on the coronavirus outbreak for Jan. 17 – CBC.ca