Tag Archives : Build House

At the US-Africa Leaders Summit, launch ‘Process Africa’

Several weeks ago, President Biden announced that he will host a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington in December. It’s about time. This is the first U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit since 2014, and just the second such meeting ever. China, meanwhile, has held its comparable Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) every three years since 2000, and that has provided a leadership and messaging advantage for China in Africa. 

The United States should take steps to catch up. Not by copying the failing Belt and Road Initiative, China’s big-ticket lending program to developing countries, but by giving the kind of assistance that the United States is the best at providing. At the Leaders Summit, the administration should announce a new program, which I would call “Process Africa.”

One of the biggest problems in Africa is that the continent does not process much of the food that is grown there. Despite having a large and robust agricultural base, there has been a long history of sending all or much of the produce abroad to be processed. Processing is a very lucrative part of the food value-added chain, usually much larger than the value of the crop itself.

Why has this pattern developed? There are several reasons, but it is partly a remnant of the colonial history of much of Africa. European colonial powers were happy to have raw material such as unprocessed food grown on the continent in their colonies. But they insisted that the food be sent to Europe for processing so they could capture the value-added stage. 

You only need to think of the very excellent “Belgian” and “Swiss” chocolate bars to get a quick gastronomic lesson about this swindle of African possibilities. Needless to say, chocolate (or “cocoa”) is a tropical crop, not grown in Belgium or Switzerland. Even after the European powers left Africa politically, they kept strong control of the food value chain.

In Cote D’Ivoire, the world’s largest source of cocoa, only $5 billion goes to the cocoa growers for a chocolate product that ultimately has a value of $105 billion. For cocoa grown in Ghana, the second largest cocoa producer in the world, only about 20 percent of the cocoa is processed there. In Europe, coffee processors take in three times the value recognized by the original country growers. 

How would the United States’s Process Africa Program work? I have talked to many start-up food processing companies in Africa (many of them run by women entrepreneurs) trying to break into the lucrative processing side of the business. They all emphasize the same things that they need to be successful. These include technical manufacturing support for food processing; better access to spare parts for equipment; financing at decent rates; training programs for workers; African-made packaging and preservatives; better cold-chain facilities; and basic business and management training.

They also want to see technical assistance to improve the workings of the African Continental Free Trade Area. These are the same program areas Process Africa could focus on. And they are exactly where the United States has deep expertise.

By 2050 Africa is projected to have about 2.4 billion people (up from about 1 billion now), and at some point after that Africa will become the most populous continent on Earth. Africa will need as many as 90 million new jobs. These will not be created without fundamental changes in Africa’s economy, diversifying away from basic agriculture and assisting the SME (small and medium enterprises) economy.

Process Africa would have another major benefit. In 2018, while I was the under secretary of Commerce for international trade, I led the President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa to Ethiopia, Kenya, Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana. I met with three heads of state and many other African government officials. They all said the same thing. We need manufacturing. With millions of Africans coming of age and needing jobs (half of Africa’s population is under 20 years old), they see the need for a more diverse economy, which would include a job-creating manufacturing sector.

Food processing is manufacturing, albeit sometimes a simple kind, but still a basis for expanding manufacturing knowledge and growth. Many studies (and prior examples) of how to start-up manufacturing in developing countries demonstrate the necessity of beginning with simple manufacturing processes and small companies. Once a country masters that, it can work up and out to more complex manufactured products, such as electronics, steel and auto parts.

The skills and experience individuals and companies absorb in a food processing business – such as how to use manufacturing equipment, how to train workers, how to handle raw materials and how to utilize basic business and trade concepts – can be used in the next, more ambitious stages of manufacturing 

One reason to hold a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is to enhance U.S. competition against China in Africa. Process Africa will stand in sharp contrast to what the Chinese are doing. Though China has a very visible presence in Africa, the main Chinese idea of assistance is the Belt and Road Initiative. This has consisted of enormous packages of loans for unnecessary projects that often end up being white elephants. The Belt and Road Initiative is in deep trouble, with many of its loans underwater, forcing developing country borrowers and China into difficult financial restructurings. The Belt and Road Initiative also includes almost no person-to-person soft power relationships, something that would be central to Process Africa.

Finally, with the great need to promote more allied- or friend-shoring of manufacturing out of China, Africa could be an ideal location after further development of its manufacturing expertise.

Holding an African Leaders Summit in Washington would be a great opportunity for the United States to define and refine its Africa policy. The creation of Process Africa should be part of that.

Gilbert B. Kaplan is chairman of the advisory board of the Manufacturing Policy Initiative at Indiana University and a senior adviser at Center for Strategic and International Studies. He was formerly under-secretary for international trade at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Source: TEST FEED1

Homebuilder confidence dips for eighth straight month

Record home prices and elevated interest rates caused homebuilder confidence to fall for the eighth straight month in August, according to a new survey.

The housing market index calculated by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Wells Fargo dipped six points this month and turned negative for the first time since May 2020. The eight-month streak of declines marks the worst stretch since the 2007 housing market crash. 

“Tighter monetary policy from the Federal Reserve and persistently elevated construction costs have brought on a housing recession,” NAHB chief economist Robert Dietz said in a statement, adding that the total number of housing starts will decrease this year for the first time since 2011.

Nearly 7 in 10 home builders surveyed said that higher interest rates are the driving force behind weaker demand for houses. One in five reported having to reduce prices over the past month to boost sales or prevent cancellations. 

Dietz noted that long-term interest rates have stabilized recently, providing some hope that demand will recover, particularly if red-hot inflation eases. 

Home builders have been warning for months that while many Americans want to buy a house, they are often priced out of the market, as affordable homes often aren’t profitable in the current environment. The recent construction slowdown will further constrict supply, a major factor behind record housing prices.

Home sales dipped for the fifth straight month in June but prices ticked up for the 124th straight month, according to the National Association of Realtors. 

On the other hand, the housing market in some areas is slowing rapidly, prompting fears that prices could collapse. The NAHB survey found that buyer traffic hit the lowest level since 2014 and that homebuilder confidence declined the most in the West and Northeast, where prices are highest. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Dozens of countries call on Russian forces to leave Ukraine nuclear power plant

Forty-two countries and the European Union on Monday called for the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine, citing nuclear risk.

“It is undeniable that Russia’s invasion and its continued presence at Ukraine’s nuclear facilities significantly raise the risk of nuclear incidents and accidents,” the countries said in a joint statement. 

“We urge the Russian Federation to immediately withdraw its military forces and all other unauthorised personnel from the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, its immediate surroundings, and all of Ukraine.”

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and the South Korea are among the nations that signed the statement.

Russia took control of Zaporizhzhia early in the war, and both Russia and Ukraine have blamed each other for recent strikes nearby, which Kyiv says have damaged Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

Russian control of the plant is “unacceptable” and “poses a great danger” to international principles of nuclear safety, according to the new statement, which adds that it interferes with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

The countries also condemned “Russia’s use of disinformation to try to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine.”

Zaporizhzhia’s regular staff has been working the plant, according to the IAEA, but the Russian forces’ commander there has taken charge. Russian experts have reportedly been brought to the site.

“The presence of Russian military forces at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant prevents the operator and the Ukrainian authorities from fulfilling their nuclear and radiation safety obligations in accordance with international conventions and IAEA safety standards, and prevents the IAEA from fulfilling its safeguards mandate,” the joint statement reads. Russia became a member state of the IAEA in 1957.

Russian withdrawal from Zaporizhzhia, the countries said, will enable the plant operator and the IAEA to resume safe work at the plant and reinforce safeguards. 

The IAEA director warned earlier this month that the situation at Zaporizhzhia was “completely out of control.” The United Nations secretary-general called recent attacks near the plant “suicidal.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called the shelling “Russian nuclear terror” and accused Moscow of nuclear “blackmail.” 

Russia’s occupation at the plant, Zelensky said in a recent address to Ukrainians, “increases the radiation threat to Europe so much that even at the peak moments of the confrontation during the Cold War, this did not happen.”

Zelensky has also pushed the international community to place sanctions on Russia’s nuclear industry and fuel exports. 

“The international community will hold Russia accountable for its aggression, and Russia must bear full responsibility for its unlawful actions in Ukraine,” the countries wrote in Monday’s joint statement.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House knocks new GOP report on Afghanistan withdrawal

The White House is firing back at a GOP report slamming the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan by circulating its own memo arguing the decision strengthened national security and did not compromise the United States’ ability to extinguish terrorist threats. 

The White House memo, which dismisses the GOP report as “partisan” and “riddled” with inaccuracies, lays out Biden’s logic for ending America’s longest war and pushes back on specific claims in the report led by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  

It also reiterates that President Biden inherited the Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban regarding plans for the U.S. withdrawal from the country.  

“When President Biden took office, he was faced with a choice: ramp up the war and put even more American troops at risk, or finally end the United States’ longest war after two decades of American presidents sending U.S. troops to fight and die in Afghanistan and $2 trillion spent,” White House National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson writes in the memo, text of which was first reported by Axios and obtained by The Hill.  

“The President refused to send another generation of Americans to fight a war that should have ended long ago – and we fundamentally disagree with those who advocated for miring the United States’ fighting men and women in an indefinite war with no exit strategy,” the memo continues.  

Republicans are reviving their criticisms of the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan last August as the one-year anniversary approaches. Monday marks a full year since the Taliban took over Kabul, ushering in the hasty collapse of the Afghan government.  

The White House memo offers a glimpse of the administration’s defense one year later. It cites the recent successful drone strike that killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan as evidence the U.S. can still take out terrorists without U.S. boots on the ground, and says the U.S. is better positioned today to confront threats from Russia and China.  

The memo also reminds readers that military leaders like Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said the U.S. would have needed to ultimately increase troops presence in Afghanistan above 2,500 in order to fend of Taliban attacks if Biden put the breaks on plans to withdraw.  

McCaul’s report, which is being released this week, offers a detailed look at the chaos that transpired last year and criticizes the Biden administration for failing to plan adequately ahead of the withdrawal.  

“There is a disconnect between the intelligence on the ground and what the White House is doing,” McCaul said in an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, previewing the report.  

In the report, Republicans also spell out intentions to subpoena officials and documents to which they claim the State Department has blocked access if the GOP wins enough seats to take the majority in Congress in the midterm elections.  

In response to claims that the administration was unprepared for the speed of the Taliban takeover, the White House memo says Trump’s agreement with the Taliban that it says “empowered the Taliban and weakened our partners in the Afghan government.” 

The memo says that the Biden administration worked to ramp up approvals for Afghan allies through the special immigrant visa (SIV) program and performed “extensive contingency planning” in 2021 ahead of the withdrawal.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Bolton: Trump explanations on classified documents show 'real level of desperation'

Former national security adviser John Bolton said in a new interview that former President Trump’s defense after the FBI allegedly found classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate “shows a real level of desperation.”

“When somebody begins to concoct lies like this, it shows a real level of desperation,” Bolton, who was appointed by Trump, told The New York Times.

The now-unsealed search warrant and property receipt indicate the FBI seized 11 sets of classified documents from the Florida estate, including one set labeled as “various classified/TS/SCI documents,” meaning top secret/sensitive compartmentalized information that is required to be viewed in secure facilities.

Trump has said he unilaterally declassified the documents using his presidential authority. Other Trump officials have publicly said the former president had a standing order that any documents taken from the Oval Office to the residence were immediately declassified.

However, Bolton told the Times he had never been told of such an order during his time in the White House or afterwards.

“I was never briefed on any such order, procedure, policy when I came in,” Bolton said.

“If he were to say something like that, you would have to memorialize that, so that people would know it existed,” Bolton added.

Authorities said the FBI’s search, which has attracted significant scrutiny and criticism from Trump and his allies, was in connection with its investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act, unlawfully concealed or removed public records or obstructed an investigation.

Bolton told the Times that officials had set up secure facilities at Mar-a-Lago and a property in Bedminster, N.J., both of which Trump regularly visited while president, to view sensitive material, meaning the documents could be viewed while remaining classified.

Source: TEST FEED1

Still the right decision to leave Afghanistan — yet still no accountability

As the introspection and finger pointing on Afghanistan intensifies with the one-year anniversary of the Aug. 15 fall of Kabul, we must once again recognize that it was time for U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan. As war rages in Ukraine, and the strait of Taiwan become ever more contentious, it should be possible to recognize that the United States could not continue wasting resources and risking American lives on a losing peripheral strategic interest that distracted policymakers from the signal issues of our times.  

I spent more than three years in Afghanistan, the last two as U.S. ambassador; I followed the Doha peace process as senior adviser to the Secretary of State. There were never conditions for staying indefinitely, or even a few more years, and our failure was not because of a lack of will. We had made the commitment as a nation — almost $1 trillion of expenditure, including through the Great Recession of 2008 as millions of Americans lost their homes and livelihoods; as 1 million mostly young Americans from across our country were sent to Afghanistan to fight and die for an increasingly failing policy; and as we developed an almost ideological fixation on the “global war on terror” as the world changed and much more existential threats to the United States emerged. 

Our engagement in Afghanistan was never going to work fundamentally for two reasons: because we compounded mistakes on the battlefield, politically, and in assistance by masking over years just how badly our intervention was going; and second, because Afghans, sometimes for good reasons, did not fully commit to the transformation of their country.

We never truly confronted what Afghans knew: that the Afghan government was deeply corrupt and largely dysfunctional, dependent on U.S. ambassadors, secretaries of State, and presidents to hold it together. At the provincial level, warlords loathed by the local population held sway, reinforcing the perception that the democratic political transformation was surface-deep.  

The Afghan armed forces never developed into an effective military, but year after year, U.S. government reports to Congress said they were on track to do so. The “surge” in U.S. forces, which temporarily dented the Taliban’s advance, would not have forestalled the inevitable even if it had continued. Ordinary Afghans knew what we never took seriously: that the Taliban had purpose and popular support inside the country and could not be defeated militarily as long as they had sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan. Perhaps it should not be surprising that return visitors to Afghanistan report a country more at peace than it has been in a decade or more.

There is one additional element that has not received as much attention as it should have. There was a political reason for the hastily negotiated “peace” agreement in Doha, which resulted in Afghanistan falling to the Taliban instead of a political transition. That reason was then-President Trump. The leadership at the National Security Council was part of the negotiating team; so was the Department of Defense through the senior military commander on the ground in Afghanistan. Whatever their reservations, they worked with State Department Special Envoy, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, because they all understood that the agreement, weak as it was, represented the only alternative to Trump’s threat to pull all U.S. troops out with no notice, and the unpredictable consequences that would bring. That threat hung permanently in the air and was taken seriously by most everyone who worked on Afghanistan at the time. 

The eventual timeframe for the implementation of the agreement, over a year, should have been enough for the Afghan government to prepare for the U.S. military withdrawal, and for the United States to prepare the Afghan military for the transition to come. The Afghan government, however, had ceased to be functional by then, and the shell that was the Afghan armed forces was so heavily reliant on U.S. contractors and air cover that its leadership could not envisage fighting for itself. In this environment, the Taliban, in ways we have yet to fully understand, built the networks and political understandings that allowed them to take over all 34 provincial capitals and a population of 40 million in the summer of 2021 without meaningful opposition.

In the case of the Biden administration, there could have been a decision to slow the withdrawal, as it became evident that the Afghan military was struggling, to past the fighting season and certainly past the loaded anniversary of Sept. 11. Doing so also would have permitted a more orderly evacuation program for Afghans who had worked with us and, perhaps, to pressure the Taliban regarding their continuing ties to al Qaeda.

Regardless, Afghanistan was on course to fall to the Taliban, as the intelligence correctly foretold. It is semantics to argue about whether it would have been weeks or months; the abject failure to nation-build across the previous 20 years was evident to all. 

Three questions merit some form of accountability if we are to truly come to terms with our failure in Afghanistan. A first is why $100 billion-plus of U.S. government developmental assistance and 20 years of building uneven but genuine democratic rule and institutions, economic reconstruction across the country, and social transformation for girls and women, had so little lasting effect. A second is asking why a well-armed Afghan military that, on paper, numbered 330,000 soldiers, and which was supplemented by forces under the command of regional warlords, could collapse with such a speed when faced with perhaps 70,000 poorly armed Taliban insurgents. A third is why and how did U.S. political, military and developmental strategy so manifestly fail across three presidential administrations.

It is much easier to seek to assign blame. Doing so won’t help thinking through what to do with an Afghanistan where the Taliban carry out the most extreme form of gender repression of the modern age; or how to respond to the emergence of a new terrorist sanctuary (although threats are much greater elsewhere, and the killing of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri demonstrated that “over-the-horizon” capabilities can work). It won’t help decide how best to provide much-needed humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. And it won’t help us understand that the United States could not continue spending billions of dollars, deploying military assets, and thousands of troops to confront what had become a secondary national security concern, and where we were not winning.

Leaving was the right decision. Now let’s make the effort to understand why as we chart a way forward, on Afghanistan and the conflicts to come. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes again.

P. Michael McKinley is a nonresident senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During his 37-year career in the U.S. Foreign Service, he held senior leadership positions in missions in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and South Asia and was a four-time ambassador, serving in Peru (2007-2010), Colombia (2010-2013), Afghanistan (2014-2016) and Brazil (2017-2018).

Source: TEST FEED1

Fox's Doocy: 'It would be great' if Trump called for end to threats against feds

Fox News host Steve Doocy implored former President Trump to publicly call on his supporters to “tamp down the rhetoric” against federal law enforcement amid a flurry of threats to agents and officers following the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago one week ago.

“We just know there are a lot of very specific threats against very specific agents at the FBI and what not,” Doocy said. “It would be great if everybody would tamp down the rhetoric against the FBI, because the FBI was simply doing what the DOJ asked them to do.”

Not long after Doocy’s remarks, Trump put out a statement saying the temperature “has to be brought down” after the search on Aug. 8.

The FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) have expressed alarm at the possibility of attacks on law enforcement given the furor over the search. A man in Cincinnati was shot and killed after an attempted breach of an FBI field office there.

“With all of these threats going around it would ultimately be great if the former president, who has always been a great supporter of law enforcement, it would be great if he called for an end to the violent rhetoric against federal law enforcement,” Doocy said.

Trump is known as a regular watcher of Fox News and “Fox & Friends,” the network’s morning show, in particular.

The search executed at Trump’s Florida residence last week, apparently carried out in connection with an investigation into classified materials taken from the White House, has unleashed an explosion of speculation about what the ramifications of the investigation might be for the former president and why the search was necessary for the government to retain the documents.

In the days following the search, Trump himself and his staunchest supporters in Congress and in conservative media, including at Fox News, have blasted leadership at the DOJ and FBI suggesting the departments are being “weaponized” by Democrats in control of the executive branch.

On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the FBI and DOJ while saying he would move to unseal a federal judge’s warrant authorizing the search. Trump’s lawyers also agreed to unseal the warrant, which was publicly released on Friday.

“The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants,” Garland said, adding he would not “stand by,” while such attacks are levied against the people in his department.

Doocy echoed this sentiment, saying the FBI agents who executed the search at Mar-a-Lago “were just doing their job.”

“But … for you to look at this situation and think that Democrats and Republicans have been treated the same over the last few years, you’d have to be looking at a different situation,” co-host Brian Kilmeade chimed in.

“No one is for the violence of FBI agents or any of these individuals,” Ainsley Earnhardt, the show’s third co-host added.

Doocy suggested critics of the DOJ should instead focus their anger on Garland himself.

“Garland is the one who has staked his entire reputation on it,” he said. “If there’s not something really big there, he is done.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump says 'temperature has to be brought down' after Mar-a-Lago search

Former President Trump said on Monday that his aides reached out to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to offer “whatever we can do to help,” saying the “temperature has to be brought down” after a spike in threats against law enforcement following the FBI’s search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.

“People are so angry at what is taking place,” Trump told Fox News. 

“Whatever we can do to help — because the temperature has to be brought down in the country,” he added. “If it isn’t, terrible things are going to happen.” 

The FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago one week ago in connection with its investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act and other federal statutes. Agents seized 11 sets of classified documents from the estate, although Trump has claimed he declassified the material.

The search has set off waves of criticisms of the FBI and DOJ from Trump and his allies, who argue the investigation is politically motivated. Some have called to defund the agency.

A new intelligence bulletin reportedly warned of a spike in threats against federal law enforcement following the Mar-a-Lago search, referencing an incident on Thursday at the FBI’s Cincinnati field office in which an armed man tried to breach the building and later died in a standoff with law enforcement.

The Hill has requested comment from the DOJ.

Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Inflation Reduction Act: Deploy, deploy, deploy!

Now that Democrats in Congress have approved a sizable national investment to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the ball has landed in civil society’s court to ensure the billions of dollars in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are well and rapidly spent.

President Biden’s signature on the bill is the starting gun for Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm’s three-word strategy to combat global warming: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy. We have said for years that we have the tools to combat climate change but lacked the political will. Much depends on the upcoming midterms and next presidential election, but maybe our political will is growing.

The combined clean-energy investments in the IRA and the earlier Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act approach a half-trillion dollars. There is plenty of work to do with this money. For example, we can make it easier and less expensive for homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar systems. The so-called “soft costs” — permitting, installation, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. — now comprise 65 percent of a system’s cost, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).

If communities want to make sure some of the new federal money creates jobs and boosts their economies, they should be willing to help reduce soft costs.

Activists can encourage them to expedite permitting and inspections, exempt solar systems from property and sales taxes, as well as assign someone on city staff to give home and business owners objective information about issues like the impact of solar systems on property values and insurance or how to go about selecting a solar company.

As DOE points out, people interested in solar need localized help because “there isn’t a single process or system to get solar customers online because there are many jurisdictions, utilities, and differing state and local laws involved.”

Active rather than passive renewable energy deployment can squeeze whatever is left of the potential for economies of scale to bring soft costs down for solar, wind, heat pumps and other renewable energy technologies.

Importantly, the IRA includes $18 billion for four conservation programs that can stimulate agriculture’s contribution to carbon capture and sequestration by improving soil fertility, using cover crops, minimizing tillage, employing rotational grazing to keep grasslands healthy, adding biochar and pulverized rock to fields, and so on. Technical outreach organizations like the Agriculture Extension Service have an important role ensuring the IRA funds demonstrate agriculture’s important role in mitigating global warming.

However, recent research concludes that natural carbon sinks cannot substitute for preventing greenhouse gas emissions in the first place. America’s plan should be to decrease emissions and increase carbon capture simultaneously. The question is how much CO2 elimination and CO2 capture can be done by clean natural resources and healthy ecosystems rather than by technology. The general answer is that technology should supplement nature rather than the other way around. Especially when life-cycle costs and co-benefits are considered, energy from sunlight and wind is less expensive than fossil fuels while nature’s carbon sinks are much less expensive than the technologies under development to capture and sequester carbon.

For example, consider two carbon-capture technologies still under development, both generally considered necessary to stabilize the climate: carbon capture and sequestration at power plants and factories (CCS) as well as direct air capture (DAC). Both are energy intensive and expensive to build and operate. Both involve regulatory issues, public acceptance, infrastructure needs, liability, ownership and other complications.

CCS is expected to significantly increase the consumer price of electricity, unless the government requires taxpayers to subsidize it.  

DAC is in the prototype phase. Nineteen DAC installations are said to be operating around the world today, removing CO2 at between $250 and $600 a ton. DOE hopes to bring that down to $100. But if DAC were commercialized, who would pay for it? Two energy experts — Morey Wolfson, a former energy adviser to two Colorado governors, and Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research — have calculated the cost.  

DAC’s mission would be to bring the atmospheric concentration of carbon down from its current level, which is approaching 420 parts per million (ppm). About 350 ppm is considered safe. One ppm of CO2 by volume is about 7.8 billion metric tons.

At $100 a metric ton, removing one ppm from the atmosphere would cost $780 billion. If we stopped CO2 pollution today, getting back to 350 ppm would cost nearly $55 trillion. Unfortunately, we are still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and there are substantial pressures to emit more. The world population is growing, billions of poor aspire to middle-class status, less developed nations want progress; meanwhile, human activities are depleting wetlands, soils and forests.

Timing is an issue. The World Resources Institute estimates it will take at least 30 years before DAC can remove “meaningful” amounts of carbon. Meanwhile, research, pilot projects and tax incentives will cost billions of dollars over the next decade.

These are examples of why our priority should be to put nature to work full-time.

The IRA and infrastructure bills alone will not take care of America’s contribution to the global mission to stabilize the climate. But, they are a welcome crack in the political dam that has blocked federal leadership against climate change for 30 years. We still need to blow the dam wide open.

William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs, and he also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Becker is also executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House.

Source: TEST FEED1

Vanessa Guillen family seeking $35M in damages from Army

The family of Spc. Vanessa Guillén, who was found dead in 2020 at Fort Hood, Texas, is seeking $35 million in damages from the Army, according to a court filing.

“Guillén suffered mental anguish, fear, emotional distress, physical injury, and death as a result of sexual harassment, rape, sodomy, and physical assault,” the claim, made under the Federal Tort Claims Act and shared by the Texas Tribune, asserts. Her sister, Mayra Guillén, is the claimant. 

The family is asking for $25 million in personal injury claims and $10 million for Vanessa Guillen’s wrongful death. It moved forward shortly after a court ruling that a prohibition on service members seeking damages from service-related injuries does not apply to sexual assault.

Vanessa Guillén, 20, was reportedly bludgeoned to death and buried by a fellow Fort Hood soldier, Spc. Aaron Robinson, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Army investigators have confirmed that she was also sexually assaulted during her service, though not by her killer. 

In a statement accompanying the claim, Mayra Guillén said her younger sister had initially waited to disclose sexual harassment allegations for fear of retaliation. When another soldier tried to report them on her behalf, Vanessa Guillén “suffered major retaliation” and wanted to commit suicide, Mayra Guillén wrote. 

On Thursday, a panel of judges ruled in Spletstoser v. Hyten, a case in which Air Force Gen. John Hyten, facing sexual assault allegations from Army Col. Kathryn Spletstoser, argued that the Feres doctrine, which prohibits troops from suing for injuries sustained during service, also applied to sexual assault.

The judges, however, wrote in an opinion that “alleged sexual assault [could] not conceivably serve any military purpose” and that the Feres doctrine did not therefore apply.

The Guillen family filed their claim on Friday.

Source: TEST FEED1