Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
Inter Press Service
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 13 (IPS) – With the US Fed raising interest rates, the world economy is slowing as debt distress spreads across the global South, increasing poverty worldwide to pre-pandemic levels, with the poorest countries faring worst.
Extreme poverty continues to be high and is now worse than before the pandemic in low-income countries (LICs) and among those affected by fragility, violence and conflict. The promise of eradicating poverty worldwide by 2030 has become unachievable.
Jomo Kwame SundaramThe Bretton Woods institutions’ (BWIs) annual meetings in Marrakech in October were only the second-ever in Africa. But the rich nations-dominated BWIs failed yet again to rise to the challenges of our times, setting Africa and the global South even further back.
Instead of fostering cooperation to address the causes and effects of the contemporary catastrophe, neither the International Monetary Fund nor the World Bank governors could agree on joint communiques due to the greater politicisation of multilateral fora.
Indebtedness immobilises governments
Indebtedness and restrictive creditor rules prevent governments from spending more counter-cyclically to overcome the many contractionary tendencies of recent times, besides preventing them from addressing looming social and environmental crises.
The G20’s largest twenty economies have urged strengthening “multilateral coordination by official bilateral and private creditors … to address the deteriorating debt situation and facilitate coordinated debt treatment for debt-distressed countries”.
But its Common Framework to restructure debt has been roundly criticised by civil society, think tanks and even the World Bank on many grounds, including the paltry concessional credit relief offered to a few of the very poorest countries.
In contrast, the G24 caucus of developing countries at the BWIs has emphasised the need for “durable debt resolution measures while collaborating on resolving the structural issues leading to such vulnerabilities.”
But all those advocating purported solutions are not even trying to ensure fiscal space and public spending capacity for counter-cyclical efforts, let alone achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and national development objectives.
Surcharges
The IMF currently imposes additional charges on countries that do not quickly clear their debts to the Fund. Besides the usual fees and interest, borrowing countries paid over $4 billion in such surcharges in 2020-22, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Surcharges will cost debt-distressed countries about $7.9 billion over six years. The G24 has emphasised that surcharges are pro-cyclical and regressive, especially with monetary tightening.
Governments have undertaken contractionary policies and cut imports for lack of foreign exchange. This deepens the problems of heavily indebted poor countries who cannot but count on the Fund for relief and solutions.
At Marrakech, the governing International Monetary and Financial Committee decided to “consider a review of surcharge policies”. The G24 called for “a suspension of surcharges while the review – which we hope will lead to substantial permanent reduction or complete elimination – is being conducted.”
Rich nations have been divided over surcharges. With Ukraine now among the top surcharge payers, following civil society criticisms, the Biden administration’s refusal to review surcharges in 2022 was heavily criticised by the US Congress.
Deepening austerity
IMF fiscal austerity measures of the 1980s returned with a vengeance after the 2008 global financial crisis, and then again during the Covid-19 pandemic from 2020. Most Fund loans require cutting the public sector wage bill (PSWB), the budget line to pay employees.
Most wage earners in many LICs, including nurses, teachers and other social service workers, work for the state, directly or indirectly. Although much needed, these employees have been more likely to be targeted by such budget cuts.
PSWB cuts may involve hiring or wage freezes, or limiting, or even cutting wages. These inevitably undermine government capacities and services. Fiscal consolidation has also involved raising more indirect, consumption taxes, and tax exemptions, e.g., for essential goods such as food.
In 38 countries with over a billion people, loan conditionalities during 2020-22, the three years of the Covid-19 pandemic, meant regressive tax reforms and public spending cuts. PSWB and fuel or electricity subsidy cuts are also common demands worsening economic contractions.
Austerity bound to fail
But the IMF’s own research suggests such austerity policies are generally ineffective in reducing debt, their ostensible purpose. The April 2023 IMF World Economic Outlook acknowledged austerity programmes and fiscal consolidations “do not reduce debt ratios, on average”. Yet, its Fiscal Monitor still demands “fiscal tightening” of most developing countries.
The new IMF-World Bank debt sustainability framework sets the LICs’ external debt-to-GDP ratio limit at 30% or 40%. It insists debt-distressed economies must have lower ratios than ‘strong’ countries, effectively further penalising the weak and vulnerable.
Instead of enabling consistently counter-cyclical macroeconomic frameworks, the IMF’s current short-termist approach is mainly preoccupied with annual, or worse, quarterly balances, mimicking corporate reporting practices.
Such short-termism further limits fiscal space, effectively preventing or deterring public sector investments requiring longer-term macroeconomic frameworks to realise benefits. This discourages ‘patient’ medium- to long-term investments required for national economic planning and transformation, essential for sustainable development.
Restrictive debt and fiscal targets have meant even less public investment. This is typically required of borrowing countries as a credit conditionality. Annual IMF Article IV consultations cause other countries to also accept similar constraints to avoid Fund disapproval.
While a few better-off economies enjoy full employment, most countries face further economic contraction, not least due to interest rate hikes led by the US Fed and their many effects. Instead of being part of the problem, the IMF should be part of the solution.
As a former public-school teacher, I know that my students sometimes acted out when they didn’t receive the additional educational supports they needed. Too often they then faced a choice: Get your licks or go home.
“Licks” meant an assistant principal beat their backsides with a paddle. “Go home” meant suspension. Those who chose the former would come back to class dejected, disengaged and depressed.
Many people may assume that what I saw is an outlier, but the latest Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) shows that at least 19,395 students experienced corporal punishment during the 2020-21 school year. Every time the CRDC data is released, I am reminded that corporal punishment continues in our schools today, and I am convinced it can be put to an end tomorrow.
To make this change, advocates must demand that their education leaders end this inhumane practice.
Corporal punishment has been banned in a majority of states since the mid 1990s. Nevertheless, during the 2017-18 school year, the CRDC reported, 69,492 students received corporal punishment, on top of 92,479 students in 2015-16. The most recent number is much lower mainly because in-person instruction and data reporting were disrupted during the pandemic.
Corporal punishment remains expressly legal in 16 states. Banning the practice in just 10 of those states, including the one I taught in, Alabama, along with Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas, would reduce the number of schools using corporal punishment by over 99 percent. Despite the small number of cases in the remaining six states where it is legal — Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina and Wyoming — it is still important to ban corporal punishment there to prevent individual schools from continuing the practice.
Additionally, explicitly prohibiting corporal punishment in states that have not yet done so (Connecticut, Kansas, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) would protect future generations.
Corporal punishment needs to end because there is no evidence that retaining it decreases misbehavior. In other words, in the states that allow it, corporal punishment is not helping students control their behavior.
Instead, corporal punishment is associated with unintended negative consequences. These include higher rates of mental health problems, more negative parent-child relationships, lower cognitive ability, lower academic achievement, lower self-esteem and higher risk for physical abuse.
While practicing corporal punishment has never made sense, it makes even less sense now.
Ending corporal punishment is also a civil rights issue: It is disproportionately used against Black students, students with disabilities and male students. News reports have highlighted that Black students receive physical punishment at twice the rate of white students nationwide; research shows that educators’ perceptions of student behavior are based on the students’ race — rather than the actual behavior — and that these perceptions contribute to the disproportionate rates in school discipline.
While practicing corporal punishment has never made sense, it makes even less sense now that millions of students have not returned or are continuing to miss school since pandemic-based disruptions.
While states revisit their discipline policies, they should also reduce the “go home” exclusionary discipline practices (suspensions and expulsions), which can undermine children’s attachment to school. Such harsh punishments increase the chances of students dropping out and feed the school-to-prison pipeline. In addition to those punishments increasing the number of school days students miss, research shows that exclusionary discipline can decrease students’ likelihood of accumulating course credits, reduce their likelihood of graduating and lower their chances of earning a postsecondary credential.
In my experience observing its impacts, corporal punishment has a similar distancing effect on students as suspensions and expulsions — making school feel like a place where they do not belong.
Schools still need to address misbehavior, of course, but there are better ways to do this. They can replace corporal punishment with evidence-based practices that help create safe and inclusive learning environments for all students. Such practices — including advisory systems, in which students meet regularly with a staff member about academic challenges, and “looping,” in which students have the same teacher for multiple years — build positive school-student relationships. These positive relationships can help prevent physical violence and bullying.
Restorative practices, also backed by research, typically foster dialogue in “circles” or “conferences” in which educators help students listen to each other and to teachers in order to resolve conflict and build community. For me, this often meant chatting with students in a hallway about why they acted out, giving them a chance to share their side of the story, regroup and refocus on school.
Recent research shows that investing in student supports, including social and emotional learning and mental health, is a better way to make schools truly safe, along with professional development for teachers and school staff. States should act quickly to make these alternatives more widely available and make schools less like prisons and more like everywhere else.
Corporal punishment is prohibited in almost every facet of life in the U.S. except schools. It is banned in military training centers, child care centers and juvenile detention facilities, and cannot be carried out as a sentence for a juvenile crime. The vast majority of children (76 percent) across the globe are protected by law from corporal punishment. Let’s use this current round of CRDC data to spur action to give our students better choices than the one my students faced.
Stephen Kostyo is an Impact Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists. Before working in education policy, Kostyo taught middle and high school math and science — and was recognized as a high school Teacher of the Year by his peers in 2015.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
WASHINGTON, Dec 12 (IPS) – The writer is President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free DentistryAs it strives to be the prototype environmental treaty of this era, the Minamata Convention on Mercury continues its razor-like focus on ending all major uses of mercury. Emerging as the force leading the charge is the Global South, particularly the Africa Region, whose proposals led to hard-charging changes addressing dental amalgam, mercury-based skin creams, and fluorescent lights.
At the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention (“COP5”), concluding in Geneva on 3 November, countries debated the African Amalgam Amendment, calling for the phase out of amalgam. The Africa region, led by Roger Baro, the Environment Minister of Burkina Faso, strategically built alliances beforehand, starting with the crucial 27-nation European Union.
Civil society was inspired watching one delegate after another rising to support the phase out of mercury in dentistry: from West Asia (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) to South Asia (Pakistan) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam), from Oceania (Australia, Tuvalu) to South America (Argentina) and non-E.U. Europe (Norway, Switzerland).
But several dissenters, while agreeing action is needed, were not yet amenable to a phase out date. Emerging therefore was the worldwide consensus to take three giant leaps toward mercury-free dentistry:
• For the first time, the treaty recognizes that countries can phase out amalgam – and more and more have already succeeded!
• The nations amended the treaty to add a new requirement: those countries that have “not yet phased out dental amalgam” must submit an action plan or a report on their progress.
• Most exciting of all, the nations inserted into the treaty, in brackets, a phase-out date for amalgam – an action that is not legally binding but which automatically agendizes a debate and a vote, at COP6 in 2025, on whether and when to phase out amalgam.
Africans, both government and civil society, are grimly determined to protect its people from mercury exposure and not to let its continent be made a dumping ground for toxic products, including amalgam.
In the national capitals, the march to mercury-free dentistry continues unabated. In October, Gabon decided amalgam is no longer allowed – and huge credit here goes to Serge Molly of Libreville, a long-time leader at the Minamata Convention.
This month the European Parliament and the Council of Europe debate when—not if—to phase out amalgam in all 27 member states (a dozen already have). Other Parties are ending amalgam piecemeal . . . banning its use in children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers . . . or in the military . . . or in government programs.
No consumer or parent these days wants amalgam; no one with the power to choose accepts a mercury implant in the mouth. Where choice reigns—the private sector—amalgam use is ending.
Well-ensconced inside government bureaucracies, the mercury lobby imposes amalgam outrageously on powerless consumers—the indigenous, the poor, the racial minorities, the immigrants, the institutionalized, the privates in the army and the seamen in the navy.
Unchecked by their superiors, the condemnable chief dental officers of the U.S. and Canada (1) ignore their legal duty to comply with the Minamata Convention Children’s Amendment, (2) violate their Hippocratic Oath daily by outright defiance of the recommendations against use by both Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and (3) maintain mercury-toxic workplaces for dental workers while they sit protected from mercury exposure in their plush government bureaus.
The great Minamata Convention had its genesis from studies showing mercury in the Arctic, drifting there via air or waterways, was harming indigenous peoples. In stark defiance of the spirit of Minamata, Health Canada dentists fly planeloads of mercury fillings daily into the Arctic and sub-Arctic, leaving the dental mercury behind to pollute the Tribal Lands.
Equally ignominiously, the U.S. Indian Health Service has ignored for seven years the resolution from the National Congress of American Indians to cease amalgam use on Tribal Lands.
To the profound disappointment of the environmental community, Canada’s Environment & Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault MP—despite his superb résumé fighting toxins while an NGO leader—does nothing to reduce amalgam use by Health Canada, even though his ministry is the lead at Minamata.
It is time for Minister Guilbault to condemn this wholesale usage of mercury fillings that is poisoning tribal lands. Inaction by ECC Canada portends another Grassy Narrows scandal in the making.
Rather than apply President Biden’s splendid priority of environmental justice to the U.S. Public Health Service, Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine opts for physician-to-dentist professional courtesy—giving carte blanche to the pro-mercury chief dental officers to pollute Tribal lands, prisons, Army forts, Navy bases, and minority-dominated inner cities.
By the stroke of a pen, the 4-star Admiral could order the dentists under her command at the Public Health Service to end amalgam use—and the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry calls on her to do so now.
Dentists still implanting this colonial-era primitive device do so not because they need to; but because they want to. Inaction in Ottawa and Washington must end; these two federal governments are the major reason that North American oral health care remains two-tiered: choice for the middle class and mercury for the powerless.
NEW YORK, Dec 10 (IPS) – Human Rights Day Statement by Education Cannot Wait Executive Director Yasmine SherifToday we mark a milestone in history: the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As people around the world commemorate Human Rights Day, we must also deeply reflect on the meaning of this historic document and what it takes to achieve peace in the world.
The inspiring preamble of the Universal Declaration is not the work of an indifferent or greedy mindset. It was crafted by those able to delve into their hearts and souls to authentically express the imperatives for peaceful co-existence in the world.
Inspired by the East and West, North and South, Eleanor Roosevelt, together with the French jurist, Rene Cassin, were the driving force behind the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and successive legal human rights conventions, one can safely say that these rights were not proclaimed to find consensus around the lowest common denominator. Rather, the Declaration was created to inspire and mold consensus around the highest of human values: the goal was to achieve peace.
The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: ‘Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet, almost a century later, these universal rights are largely not respected, nor equally applied. As the essence of these values and laws are eroded and ignored, is it any wonder that there are more wars, conflicts and widespread injustices, resulting in more refugees, internal displacement and immense human suffering?
This unspeakable, yet preventable, human suffering comes about because we have departed from our highest of human values through many small and big decisions. These are decisions leading to actions severely undermining the foundation for peaceful co-existence in the world. Haven’t freedom, equality and justice for all members of the human family been compromised or disregarded enough?
The path to peace is not complicated. The answer lies in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the rights enshrined in the Declaration.
The right to an inclusive, sustainable quality education is a foundational right. A continued quality education empowers every child and adolescent to claim all other rights. The chance of success is even greater provided that these children and adolescents live in an environment conducive to all other human rights – also for their families, communities and countries.
This is not complicated. It only demands that we take courageous decisions in every role we find ourselves – and deploy meaningful action – to begin materializing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for all members of the human family.
It would be such a purposeful way of moving forward. It would be a profound legacy to leave behind for the young generation and for generations to come. All we need to do is to act as our conscience dictates. Or, as the co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt, rhetorically asked: “When will our conscience grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it.”
This is the moment it all becomes normal. When it’s no longer a spectacle, controversial, or even taboo. When it’s not about right or wrong or strong opinions or sticking it to the man. Jon Rahm’s move to LIV Golf is imminent, and it feels like the final confirmation that this is simply the way things are. This is what the golf world is going to be.
Because this is not somebody chasing a payday like Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka. And it’s not a pariah spurning the PGA Tour like Phil Mickelson.
This is a golf nerd. An obsessive. A 29-year-old golf history buff who rises at 6 a.m. before the kids are up to rewatch tournaments on YouTube, who pesters golfers during rounds to learn more about famous shots they’ve hit, who reveres his Spanish childhood idols like Seve Ballasteros and Jose Maria Olazabal. It’s the same person who shut down LIV rumors in Summer 2022 by saying he and his wife agreed LIV money wouldn’t change their lives at all. “I’ve always been very interested in history and legacy,” Rahm said, “and right now the PGA Tour has that.”
Right now. That, in retrospect, was the key choice of words.
The moment Jay Monahan and the PGA Tour went behind the players’ backs and made a deal with the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia (the financiers of LIV), it changed the calculus. Yes, in the short term, it ended the countless lawsuits and it put a temporary halt on LIV poaching players. But it also had two other unintended consequences. One, it led to players losing their trust in Monahan, which he’s unlikely to ever get back. But the less discussed outcome is what might have brought us to this moment: making a deal with PIF normalized it. And removing that taboo might have removed the PGA Tour’s best defense.
Let’s go back a bit. You might be thinking, “Aren’t the PGA Tour and PIF working toward a deal? Why is LIV still poaching players?” That’s a key question. The June 6 framework agreement set a deadline of Dec. 31 to pursue a deal in good faith. The detail that’s difficult to know from the outside is how good that faith is and if they’re at all close to a deal. As far back as October, The Athletic’s Brendan Quinn reported sources on both sides were doubtful of a deal happening. And it’s been no secret the PGA Tour has been talking with other investors as contingency plans if it loses the billions of dollars of Saudi funding (although some reports claim those investors could be in addition to PIF).
GO DEEPER
Ambition meets survival: PGA Tour, Saudi PIF and the deal to shape golf’s future
So why snag Rahm? Why now? One could take it as LIV understanding a deal might not happen and it needs to continue to grow its product. That is the simplest reasoning, and landing the reigning Masters champ and No. 3 player in the world is by far the biggest attraction yet. One worth a reported $566 million, according to The Telegraph. LIV has landed some all-time greats like Mickelson and Johnson. And it’s landed some current stars like Koepka and Cameron Smith. But depending on your opinion, Rahm might be the actual best player in the world, and he’s right in his prime.
Jon Rahm, left, has joined Brooks Koepka as PGA Tour stars to join LIV. (Andrew Redington / Getty Images)
The other theory is that this is a bargaining chip. A massive, daunting bargaining chip. The PGA Tour has the leverage of courting other investors, already owning the huge TV deals and all the relationships with sponsors that LIV craves. LIV’s best leverage in negotiations might be taking superstars like Rahm, among others, and forcing the PGA Tour back to the table for substantial negotiations. Want your star back? Make a deal. Monahan and PIF governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan are scheduled to meet this week for negotiations, and maybe in a month we’ll all look back on this as the dramatic move that brought golf together. Maybe, just maybe.
But being naive is how the PGA Tour got itself in such a troubled position in the first place, so for the sake of conversation let’s assume Rahm just left the PGA Tour and the war is back on indefinitely.
This one hits the tour in a far deeper, more troubling way. It’s somebody who famously once declared “my fealty to the PGA Tour” and supported Monahan just three months ago now taking stock of the situation and saying he thinks this is the better choice for his career. It’s so, so different. Because it’s no longer this taboo, polarizing choice that shocks the world. Rahm just thought it was the better move, and that means he won’t be the last.
Maybe his Masters win changed things. Rahm is such a legacy guy. And now Rahm has a lifetime exemption to the Masters. His 2021 U.S. Open win gets him into that major through 2031, and he has four more years of exemptions to the PGA Championship and Open Championship. So he’s still set for the next 16 majors, at least, and I’m sure he assumes things will change by 2027 to ensure LIV players get better OWGR standing.
It might have to. Because this might be the final straw in accepting we live in a world with two major golf leagues. If we were being truly honest with ourselves, the PGA Tour still owned the golf landscape through 2023. It had all the best young players and the top three or four in the world, and sure it was a bummer that Koepka, Johnson, Smith and so on weren’t around every week, but we still saw them at the majors and it never really felt like too much of an issue. Rahm (and whoever else now defects) moves us closer to two watered-down leagues. That is bad for everyone.
GO DEEPER
Tiger Woods is back. Only the future of golf is at stake
I’d rather LIV be a good product. Eventually, I accepted defeat on my moral high ground and said I’d like to be able to watch Smith and Koepka, two golfers I greatly appreciate. As of now, LIV is a really poor product, from courses to presentation to the actual golf. Early reports of Rahm’s potential departure said Rahm wanted assurances LIV would alter its format. It’s unclear if that is at all on the table, but OWGR isn’t budging on not giving points to a league that plays an entire round less than the others. Maybe this all moves LIV toward being a better product.
But the mere fact we’re even discussing wanting LIV to be better, the reality that we are thinking about two leagues and accepting their coexistence just returns us to the real point. Joining LIV is no longer scandalous. It won’t get you canceled. It’s just one more drop in the slow drip of the new normal.
In August Rahm was asked the one change he’d most like to see on the PGA Tour. It wasn’t some big-picture issue, the kind that makes people leave. It wasn’t money, branding or format.
“I know this is going to sound very stupid,” Rahm said, “but as simple as having a freaking Port-a-Potty on every hole. I know it sounds crazy, but I can’t choose when I have to go to the bathroom.”
Rahm wasn’t trying to run away from the PGA Tour. He just was ready to go to LIV, and you can’t help but think it leaves all of golf stuck in it.
Games Workshop retail staff have a rough job, from low pay to consistent unreasonable targets from upper management, so it’s with all the love and respect that I tell you about the animated lad that my 14-year-old friends and I used to make fun of for liberal use of the phrase “If a Space Marine walked in here right now…” It was always accompanied by wildly enthusiastic gesticulation meant to convey the absolute unit-tude of said Space Marines (8 feet tall in Warhammer 40,000’s lore). I bring this up because it perfectly sums up the thorny issue behind marketing these yoked stormtroopers: Space Marines are very expensive for something so small, forcing Games Workshop to make the legend of these tiny plastic soldiers tower over the reality.
And what a legend it is. The Horus Heresy book series currently consists of over 60 fat paperbacks worth of lore. There’s far too much nuance to unpack here, but it’s fair to say that when writers spend that long exploring something, they have to take it quite seriously, especially if they want to keep their readers hooked. To be clear, 40K is a fascinating, fun, creative, vast, and often extremely clever setting. But it’s also — at least as recently as 2021, according to its parent company — explicitly, intentionally satirizing the very faction that the vast majority of its lore seems so fascinated with. “Satire is people as they are; romanticism, people as they would like to be,” wrote the novelist Dawn Powell. As 40K grows and grows, it’s becoming more difficult to deny that the portrayal of the Imperium is at least somewhat aspirational.
Image: Owlcat Games via Polygon
A quick primer: Humanity’s overwhelming presence in the 40K setting takes the shape of the Imperium of Man, where staunch xenophobia, mindless zealotry, and outright hostility toward social or technological progress are among the highest virtues — a literal “cult of tradition”. Ordinary folk live in cramped “Hives,” toiling away until death, at which point they’re repurposed as tasty, nutritious “corpse starch.” The Imperial Guard, humanity’s most numerous military force, is best known for employing the Zapp Brannigan maneuver, i.e., throwing endless bodies at a problem until it sorts itself out. As such, individual human life is less than worthless. Terra’s more elite military are the Space Marines. As 2000 AD’s Judge Dredd is to law enforcement, so are the Space Marines to the concept of the Ubermensch — a grimly satirical warning about the pursuit of perceived physical perfection and ultimate strength.
Of the 36 playable factions in 40K, around half (17) are of the Imperium in some capacity, with a further nine being their direct foil in Chaos, leaving just 10 to split between the multiple nonhuman species that populate this mind-bogglingly huge universe. Sci-fi can vary wildly in flavor, but a unifying thread is that great science fiction is almost insatiably curious. 40K absolutely shines when it mocks the staunch anti-curiosity of its human protagonists. But as the company has gradually grown to value sales over artistic intent, that lack of curiosity too often seems to be adopted by Games Workshop itself.
Image: Owlcat Games via Polygon
This fantastic look at the timeline of 40K, and how it moved from satire to something almost resembling celebration, puts it like this: “As the setting grew more mainstream, Space Marines’ [portrayal] as noble warrior monks became more and more prominent, resulting in a world where these abused, intolerant, mass-murdering child soldiers are only ever portrayed from the Imperium’s point of view,” and, in the vast majority of official artwork, “as genuine heroes.” Even the official website categorizes nonhuman armies as “the Xenos threat.” Look a little closer, and it’s easy to see the inherent satire in images of Primarch Roboute Guilliman with a Christ-like halo of light shining from the background. But unless you know what you’re looking for, this stuff looks suspiciously like the very propaganda that it’s making fun of.
This isn’t to say, of course, that modern-day Games Workshop has lost its sense of satire, and most certainly not its sense of humor. As we’ve seen time and time again in the games industry, shareholders misunderstanding or just straight-up not valuing the creative process is a depressingly prevailing theme — it’s easy for nuance to get crushed under the pursuit of easy profitability. The rule of cool sells plastic, not difficult themes. Plus, 40K is a wargame. In a setting that requires constant conflict, factions that think in absolutes become necessary. But that’s where video games like the recent, excellent CRPG Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader come in. It’d be a massive anticlimax to end a game of 40K with a conversation before it even starts, but as the setting is allowed to spread its wings in a new genre, some of that classic satire begins to flourish again.
Image: Owlcat Games via Polygon
40K is, above all else, ridiculous, and Rogue Trader hasfun with it without losing any of the campy grindhouse stuff that grimdark excels at. Characters speak in rich, baroque prose, at once excellently written and almost indecipherable to anyone not already indoctrinated into their bizarre religious neo-feudalism. You don’t even have to leave your own ship to encounter dehumanizing class structure, and each of your erstwhile associates is comically nefarious enough to be the main villain in any other setting. In Baldur’s Gate 3, for example, the evil path requires a deliberate, long attempt to stray into monstrous territory. Here, you can have several crew members executed in the first few hours without breaking character.
Rogue Trader isn’t even the first game to pull this off recently. Warhammer 40,000: Darktide, despite a rocky launch, is shaping up as an excellent successor to the Vermintide series, and portrays the horrific satire of existence in 40K’s horrendous hive cities masterfully. Loading screen quotes are such pointed satire you’d have to have accidentally super-glued your eyes shut building models to miss them, with lines like “A small mind is a tidy mind,” “Blessed are the intolerant,” and “Duty is vital, understanding is not.” It seemed only a few short years ago that the glut of Warhammer games felt like a punchline. Now, the scope and breadth these games offer are starting to feel like a better medium to portray the most complete version of 40K than the tabletop game itself.
Generative AI is a paradigm shift in technology, and it will spur a massive shift in enterprise spend over the next decade and beyond. Transformations of this magnitude can feel rapid on the surface, especially when they make a huge splash like generative AI has in recent months, but it’s a steep and steady climb to permeate the layers of the enterprise technology stack.
The infrastructure layer captures the initial spend as companies assemble the building blocks for power and performance — the capital pouring into Nvidia and GPU aggregators today indicate this is well underway. As adoption (and dollars) move up the stack, development focus will shift toward the new experiences and products that will reshape each subsequent layer.
We’re just getting a glimpse of how this transformation will unfold at the application layer, and early signals suggest the disruption will be profound.
As generative AI shapes the next generation of application products, we can expect even more sweeping evolution.
Collaboration was a defining characteristic of this new breed of enterprise tools, with features like multiplayer mode, annotation functionality, version history, and metadata. These apps also leveraged consumer-native viral components to drive adoption and enable seamless sharing of content within and between organizations. The core record retained its intrinsic value within these systems of engagement, and served as a bedrock for the growing volume of information created at the engagement layer.
As generative AI shapes the next generation of application products, we can expect even more sweeping evolution. The first players look a lot like ChatGPT integrators, building lightweight tools directly on top of generative models that deliver immediate but fleeting value. We have already seen a variety of generative AI products emerge that have explosive initial growth, but also extremely high churn due to limited workflow or lack of additional functionality. These applications typically produce a generative output that is a single-use type of content or media (i.e., not embedded into a user’s everyday workflow), and their value relies on off-the-shelf generative models that are widely available to others in the market.
The second wave of generative AI applications, which is just beginning to take shape, will leverage generative models to integrate the structured data that lies within the system-of-record applications and the unstructured data that lies within the system-of-engagement applications.
Developers of these products will have more potential to create enduring companies than first-wave entrants, but only if they can find a way to “own” the layer above the system-of-engagement and system-of-record applications — no mean feat when incumbents like Salesforce are already scrambling to implement generative AI to create a protective moat around their underlying layers.
This leads to the third wave, where entrants create their own, defensible “system of intelligence” layer. Startups will first introduce novel product offerings that deliver value by harnessing existing system-of-record and system-of-engagement capabilities. Once a strong use case is established, they will then build out workflows that can ultimately stand alone as a true enterprise application.
This does not necessarily mean replacing the existing interactive or database layers; instead, they will create new structured and unstructured data where generative models utilize these new datasets to enhance the product experience — essentially creating a new class of “super datasets.”
A core focus for these products should be integrations with the ability to ingest, clean, and label the data. For example, to build a new customer support experience, it’s not enough to simply ingest the knowledge base of existing customer support tickets. A truly compelling product should also incorporate bug tracking, product documentation, internal team communications, and much more. It will know how to pull out the relevant information, tag it, and weigh it in order to create novel insights. It will have a feedback loop that allows it to get better with training and usage, not only within an organization but also across multiple organizations.
When a product accomplishes all of this, switching to a competitor becomes very difficult — the weighted, cleaned data is highly valuable and it would take too long to achieve the same quality with a new product.
At this point, the intelligence lies not only in the product or model, but also in the associated hierarchy, labels, and weights. Insights will take minutes instead of days to deliver, with a focus on actions and decisions rather than just synthesis of information. These will be the true system-of-intelligence products that leverage generative AI, marked by these defining traits:
Have deep integration with company workflows and ability to capture newly created structured and unstructured data.
Be sophisticated around the characterization and digestion of data through hierarchy, labels, and weights.
Create data feedback loops within and between customers to enhance the product experience.
One key question I love to ask customers is, “Where does a new product stack rank with the other tools you use?” Normally the system-of-record product is the most important, followed by the system-of-engagement product, with additional tooling at the bottom of the list.
The least important product will be the first to get cut when the budget is tight, so emerging system-of-intelligence products must provide enduring value in order to survive. They’ll also face steep competition from incumbents who will build generative AI–enabled intelligence capabilities into their products. It will be up to the new wave of system-of-intelligence to couple their offerings with high-value workflows, collaboration, and the introduction of super datasets to endure.
Transformation of the AI space has accelerated over the last 12 months, and the industry is learning fast. Open source models are proliferating and closed proprietary models are also evolving at an atypically rapid pace. Now it’s up to founders to build enduring system-of-intelligence products atop this rapidly shifting landscape — and when it’s done right, the impact on enterprises will be extraordinary.
NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec 08 (IPS) – Africa is contending with a climate crisis it did not create without sufficient recognition for the unique rights and needs of the world’s youngest and fastest-growing population. Not only is the continent least responsible for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, having historically produced just a tiny fraction, but it is also disproportionately impacted by the consequences of emissions generated elsewhere.
And when climate disasters such as cyclones in Mozambique and Malawi, or droughts in the Horn of Africa strike, the subsequent humanitarian response diverts vital funds that could have otherwise supported public health, education and food security.
Such extreme events take an enormous toll on Africa’s primary industries, including crop and animal agriculture, with the livestock sector alone losing $2 billion from the ongoing drought.
It would therefore be preposterous to hold any of these sectors directly to account for curbing climate change – let alone one that provides food and livelihoods for hundreds of millions amidst growing climate risks.
Yet this is precisely the scenario that unfolds when the global climate debate around the role of livestock results in calls for blanket reductions of herd numbers and wholesale dietary shifts away from meat.
Broad campaigns for a transition away from animal agriculture and towards plant-based diets without qualifying regional differences overlook the severe levels of undernutrition in parts of the world caused by inadequate intake of animal-source foods. This risks creating the impression that Africans, who consume as little as seven kilograms of meat a year, must give up vital yet underconsumed sources of protein and micronutrients to mitigate emissions mostly generated elsewhere.
It is critical that regional and even national distinctions are made when making the case for dietary and production changes. Meat consumption and production practices vary enormously around the world. Where meat is over-consumed and produced unsustainably, we recognise this needs to change – not only to bring down emissions but to improve health standards.
But applying this argument globally misses the livestock sector’s outsized and fundamental role in the development of low-income countries, including those across Africa. And this blind spot is made all the more unjust by the fact that those in the Global North have both driven up global emissions and failed to meet commitments to Africa for climate-related development finance.
Livestock keeping offers African countries a gateway to the food security and economic growth enjoyed elsewhere while also enabling the climate adaptation made necessary largely by the actions of others. Investing more climate funding to support Africans farmers and animals adapt to new extremes is an enormous opportunity for a climate-resilient economy. And it is also a matter of climate justice.
Unlike many other parts of the world, Africa is facing exponentially more mouths to feed in the decades ahead just as climate change makes farming harder and riskier than ever.
By 2050, a quarter of the global population will be African, while the region already suffers from the highest prevalence of hunger and malnutrition in the world. From 2021 to 2022, an additional 11 million Africans faced hunger, with 57 million more slipping into food insecurity since the Covid-19 outbreak began.
For many Africans, meat, milk and eggs are a precious and infrequent addition to our diets, providing a dense supply of nutrients and energy that are not as readily available from other foods or supplements.
Africa’s rising population is also an increasingly youthful population, and the majority of young people in sub-Saharan Africa already work in agriculture and in rural areas. Livestock will remain fundamental to Africa’s economic development, contributing up to 80 per cent of agricultural GDP.
As the sector adapts to new demands and circumstances, it also has the opportunity to develop differently to the livestock sector in industrialised countries. At present, half of Africa’s meat and milk is produced by pastoralists, whose animals roam and graze, providing valuable services for natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
However, changes in drought cycles are resulting in shortages of animal feed and fodder, which leads to food and economic insecurity, instability and even conflict among rural communities.
Solutions already exist in Africa that allow rural communities to continue to benefit from raising livestock in spite of climate extremes. These include more climate resilient indigenous cattle breeds and varieties of livestock forages, better climate information services, training and services for farmers and more sophisticated infrastructure and markets. Moreover, these innovations also help to make African livestock systems more efficient, meaning less loss and waste, and lower levels of emissions.
But the continent urgently needs more climate finance to help the entire livestock sector access these new developments. Africa needs to be able to realise the full potential of its livestock sector as a driver for development, and this has been recognised by the African Union in its Agenda 2063 as well as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the Livestock Development Strategy for Africa (LiDeSA).
For the most part, the continent does not contend with the same overconsumption, industrialisation and carbon footprints that drive the agenda in the Global North. Because of this, the opportunities that livestock present for Africa should be fully recognised – and fully funded.
Dr. Huyam Salih, Director of African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR)
Professor Appolinaire Djikeng, Director General, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Opinion by Mary Assunta, Irene Reyes (bangkok, thailand)
Inter Press Service
BANGKOK, Thailand, Dec 08 (IPS) – As the world commemorates the 75th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ( on Human Rights Day December 10), we turn the spotlight on a glaring contradiction the world is experiencing from a harmful industry. Despite causing 8 million annual deaths and a myriad of diseases, the tobacco industry has enjoyed six decades of the legal right to manufacture and sell its harmful products.
This travesty to human rights remains unaddressed with no admission of liability, compensation for victims, or withdrawal of the product.
Instead, the tobacco industry has thwarted and undermined government efforts to protect public health, intimidated governments with legal challenges, used exaggerated data to persuade policy makers that tobacco is a good investment, and funded charity during crisis to polish its tarnished image.
The tobacco business and human rights are diametrically opposed. To protect public health, the UN global treaty, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) has set standards to regulate the industry and reduce tobacco use globally.
Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC empowers governments to shield their tobacco control policies from being derailed and undermined by the tobacco industry and its representatives. Governments can address conflicts of interest issues and keep the industry at arm’s length.
In 2017, the UN Global Compact removed the tobacco companies from its list in recognition of the harm caused by tobacco and hence deserving distinct treatment.
Despite the strong action from the UN system, the tobacco industry has remained defiant. To spruce up its image, it is even mischievously associating itself with human rights. Reports from Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco claim to “respect” human rights, and BAT released a report on human rights and modern slavery.
Unfortunately, many governments have not utilised Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC which provides clear guidance to avoid conflicts of interest and unnecessary interactions with the tobacco industry.
The 2023 Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, a survey of 90 countries, has reported widespread unnecessary interactions between the government and the tobacco industry, opening the door for conflicts of interest through potential partnerships and collaborations. These interactions occurred even in countries that prohibit such engagements.
The Global Index is a civil society report on how well governments are protecting their health policies from tobacco industry interference according to the recommendations in Article 5.3 Guidelines and ranks countries accordingly (Figure 1).
Some governments have taken action, but still face meddling from the industry. For example when they limit interactions with the tobacco industry, they often face challenges from industry-funded front groups, as seen in Uganda and Brazil. Usually, governments are unaware of their industry links because they have not implemented transparency measures.
The Global Index found that transparency and accountability are lacking globally, with most countries failing to implement rules for disclosure of industry ties. Most countries do not have rules for disclosure of meetings with the tobacco industry, a register of lobbyists from the tobacco industry, or policies to require the tobacco industry to disclose information on its marketing and lobbying.
In Asia, none of the 19 countries surveyed have a registry disclosing affiliations, or individuals linked to or operating on the tobacco industry’s behalf.
Since the harms of smoking are well established, the tobacco industry is now rebranding itself as a “responsible and caring industry” by marketing supposedly less harmful products, while simultaneously undermining government efforts to combat the tobacco epidemic and protect future generations.
Vaping (use of e-cigarettes) was even presented as ‘a human rights issue’ at an industry-sponsored event claiming it should be made affordable for smokers in poor countries. In Argentina, Malaysia, Philippines and Pakistan, industry front groups participated in discussions on the regulation of e-cigarettes and HTPs to convince governments to embrace these products.
The Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance warns of the alarming increase in vaping, particularly among the youths. Countries that allow sales of e-cigarettes such as Canada, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines and the UK, have all seen rapid and high uptake by youths because enforcement is a challenge, as traders continue to market to minors, offering products in appealing designs and thousands of flavors and making them easily accessible online.
In 2022, the Philippines passed legislation on e-cigarettes that lowered the purchase age, allowed flavors and online advertising, contributing to the alarming rise of vaping among Filipino adolescents. The ease of access through online shopping platforms, lacking age verification, exacerbates the problem.
Malaysia recently passed a new omnibus tobacco control law, seen as weaker than originally proposed, and some policy makers have pointed a finger at Big Tobacco’s influence particularly in removing a forward-thinking generational endgame clause.
By yielding to industry influence, Malaysia has missed an opportunity to prevent future generations from becoming victims of the tobacco epidemic.
Malaysia ranked 78 out of 90 countries in the Global Index and their scores have been deteriorating over the years by allowing the tobacco industry in policy development and engaging in unnecessary interactions with the industry.
Governments alone hold the power to determine the health standards for their citizens and decide how to protect the current and future generations. Every instance of a government yielding to tobacco industry lobbying, represent a step backward in ensuring health and fundamental human rights of their people.
Mary Assunta is the Head of Global Research and Advocacy at Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control; Irene Reyes is the Tobacco Industry Denormalization Manager at Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance
Indigenous Peoples from Alianza Ceibo fight to counter environmental degradation and protect more than 2 million hectares of primary rainforest in four provinces and 70 communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Credit: Alianza Ceibo
Opinion by Marcos Athias Neto (new york)
Inter Press Service
NEW YORK, Dec 07 (IPS) – The triple planetary crisis of climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and pollution is a threat to the well-being and survival of millions of people around the world. Corruption, in its many forms, worsens these multiple crises.
From illegal logging and wildlife trafficking to bribery in environmental permits, to lax enforcement of regulations, corruption inflicts severe damage on our already affected fragile ecosystems.
In the forestry sector alone, close to 420 million hectares of forest have been lost between 1990 and 2020 as a result of deforestation enabled by corruption.
Climate change interventions are currently worth US$546 billion and, although difficult to measure accurately, Transparency International estimates suggest anywhere between 1.4 and 35 per cent of climate action funds have been lost to corruption, and only in 2021, over 350 land and environmental defenders were murdered.
UNDP has been recognizing and championing Indigenous Forest Defenders like Nemonte Nenquimo, the Indigenous Waorani activist from Ecuador, co-founder of the Alianza Ceibo— UNDP Equator Prize winner of 2014, named among the 100 most influential people of 2020 by the Time Magazine. There are 275 Equator Prize winners many of whom are defending land rights.
Anti-corruption is a development financing issue.
Corruption siphons off funds from urgently needed climate financing and the green energy transition. Effective, transparent, and inclusive governance mechanisms and institutions are prerequisites for combating corruption and will help not only ensure that financing achieves its maximum impact, but also contributes to the trust required for the releasing of additional funds.
If we can tackle corruption, we can improve our efforts to successfully protect our environment. However, we must act now, and we must work together. Anti-corruption tools, including those powered by digital advancements, have the potential to help countries reach their climate goals.
Resources lost in illicit financial flows and to corruption each year can be used in targeted investments in governance, social protection, green economy, and digitalization. This is the ‘SDG Push’ scenario which would prevent as many as 169 million people from being driven into extreme poverty by 2030.
Governance mechanisms must be in place
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is working to promote the investment of over $1 trillion of public expenditure and private capital in the SDGs. A portion of these investments are likely to be directed towards climate finance.
In Sri Lanka and Uganda, UNDP is using data and digital monitoring tools to tackle illegal environmental practices and promote integrity and transparency in environmental resource management.
UNDP has also recently launched its Energy Governance Framework for a Just Energy Transition to contribute to achieving more inclusive and accountable energy transitions. In Eswatini, UNDP is supporting inclusive national dialogues to identify mini-grid delivery models and clarify priority interventions for an inclusive and integrated approach to off-grid electrification.
A mini-grid delivery model, determined by the national government with active multi-stakeholder engagement, is the cornerstone of a country’s over-arching mini-grid regulatory framework. It defines who finances, builds, owns and who operates and maintains the mini-grids.
Technology must be promoted
To ensure that crucial financial resources are used for their intended purposes and are not manipulated by corruption, we must ensure that transparency mechanisms exist. With appropriate safeguards in place, technology can be a game-changer for addressing corruption. Big data analytics, mobile applications and e-governance systems are valuable tools in the prevention, detection and investigation of corruption.
In Ukraine, a new e-platform supported by UNDP is increasing transparency in procurement. UNDP in partnership with the EU and the National Agency on Corruption Prevention has also developed a new basic online course to train anti-corruption officers.
Partnerships against corruption must galvanize global efforts
UNDP and the Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Nazaha) are jointly launching a new global initiative for measuring corruption at the 10th Session of the Conference of the States Parties to UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), hosted by the United States in Atlanta from 11 – 15 December 2023.
The objective of this new partnership is to strengthen international cooperation to fight corruption and enable countries to track and monitor progress on tackling corruption. This new initiative will develop evidenced-based indicators to evaluate progress and efforts of countries to end multiple forms of corruption.
It will identify policy recommendations and reforms to enable countries to achieve national anti-corruption objectives, as well as address the SDG16 targets for reducing corruption and illicit financial flows.
UNDP remains committed to being united against corruption and to advance the spirit and letter of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption by driving new efforts to measure corruption, with our partners from the UN and beyond.
The Anti-corruption Day is commemorated on 9 December, along with the 20th Anniversary of UNCAC.
Marcos Athias Neto is UN Assistant Secretary General and Director of UNDP’s Bureau for Policy and Programme Support.
The two top guards in the 2020 recruiting class — Bueckers the No. 1 overall player, Clark the No. 4 — both hailed from the Midwest, playing on rival EYBL teams and then together in Team USA’s youth program. Both were excellent 3-point shooters, lethal from the wings and left baseline, with the ability to hit the free-throw pullups and finish at the hoop. But they also had their unique flairs — for Clark, it was her range; for Bueckers, it was off-balance runners perfectly kissed off the glass.
For college, they chose alternate paths. Clark opted to stay home and play for Iowa, a program that had been to the Elite Eight four times in program history, but just once in Clark’s lifetime. Bueckers, a Minnesota native, signed with UConn, a dynasty that had not only made the Elite Eight almost every year of Bueckers’ life but also won nine national titles during that span.
Even as freshmen, while they played in mostly empty arenas (many, only sparsely filled with cardboard cutouts during the COVID-19 season), it was evident that they were the types of players who could dominate the college conversation until their careers almost certainly led to the WNBA.
That season, they met in the Sweet 16, a game billed — from the moment the bracket was released — as a clash between two of the most dynamic scorers in the nation.
“It’s been a while since you have two kids that have had this kind of an impact, both on their teams and on the game itself nationally,” UConn coach Geno Auriemma said before that game. “To have one is kinda cool. But to have two. … It’s two really, really young kids, really good players that do a lot for their teams.”
Bueckers’ Huskies beat Clark’s Hawkeyes 92-72, but their individual performances hinted at the talents they were and could become. Bueckers finished with 18 points, eight assists and nine rebounds. Clark ended with 21 points and five assists.
The game was a perfect encapsulation, in some ways, of why two paths — for two equally impactful players — had diverged. Clark went to Iowa knowing she would be the Hawkeyes’ No. 1 offensive option, their go-to, do-everything player. She took 21 of Iowa’s 60 shots that night. And since then, that trend has continued as Clark has averaged 19.3 shot attempts a game during her college career, accounting for 31 percent of the Hawkeyes’ field goals since 2020.
But Bueckers chose UConn for almost the opposite reason. Though she could be the kind of player who took a third of her team’s shots, she wanted to play within a more balanced system. She actively recruited other players, such as Azzi Fudd, the No. 1 recruit in the class behind her, to join her on the Huskies’ roster, hoping it would effectively guarantee that the responsibility would be shouldered collectively as a team — because that’s how UConn had built its dominance over the years.
Even when the program had national player-of-the-year talent such as Diana Taurasi, Breanna Stewart and Maya Moore (and even Bueckers during the 2020-21 season), that single player never offensively dominated the box scores like Clark has over the past three years in Iowa City. In the last 20 seasons, only two players have averaged more than 15 shots a game over the course of a season — Megan Walker (15.5) from 2019-20 and Moore (16.7) from 2010-11.
But now the Huskies are in a significantly different situation. With a roster hampered by injuries and an eight-player rotation featuring four freshmen, Bueckers and UConn might need to take a page out of Clark and Iowa’s book. She might need to become the kind of shot-hunter, primary (and secondary) offensive option on every possession that hasn’t been a UConn hallmark, but did carry the Hawkeyes to the national title game a season ago.
And Bueckers can be that.
GO DEEPER
A better, more confident Paige Bueckers? ‘That’s pretty scary’
Against UCLA, Bueckers took 23 shot attempts. It’s the one reason the Huskies were even in that game. On every possession, the Bruins keyed in on her. Every screen she came off, two to three players crashed in on her, and whenever a player gave her breathing room outside the arc, she launched.
It’s not the role Bueckers envisioned for herself at UConn, but it’s the one that gives the Huskies the best shot of righting the ship this season. Ironically, what she didn’t want (to be an 18-shot player night in and night out) could be the only way UConn gets within striking distance of the one thing she wants (a national title).
To get there, it can’t be just Bueckers. Every Huskies player would need to raise her game, and UConn will need to figure out its issues on the glass, but by drawing more attention to herself, she’ll give everyone else a bit more breathing room. Even after missing all of last season, she is still one of the most respected shot makers in the game. And it does not matter how many shots she might miss, because like Clark, anywhere on the floor, anytime she has the ball in her hands, she’s a scoring threat.
Now, she just needs to do that more. Against Texas, Rori Harmon and the Longhorns defense delivered a harsh reality check about the offensive ceiling for UConn. Bueckers was held to 11 shot attempts and the team took just 44. Even so, the Huskies were within 6 points with less than two minutes to go.
It’s easy to Monday-morning-quarterback any game and say Bueckers would have or should’ve done something, that UConn would have or should’ve put her in different positions (especially considering so much credit is due to Texas’ defense). But ultimately, if UConn wants to be UConn this season, Bueckers needs to take on a role she didn’t want. She needs to play more selfishly, a bit more unconsciously. It’s the only way UConn might get back to its program’s identity by March.
Bueckers taking 20 shots a game like Clark isn’t going to fix everything for UConn. But it’s the one thing that might be able to give the Huskies enough of a cushion in the interim to figure out everything else.
(Photo of Paige Bueckers: Lance King / Getty Images)
Gone are the days of scrounging up loot at dilapidated taco joints and rusty playgrounds in Fortnite. Epic Games released a massive new update to the battle royale game this week as part of Chapter 5 Season 1. The patch literally blew up the OG map with a meteor, replacing it with an entirely new, much fancier map. Instead of rough locales like Greasy Groves or Tomato Temple, players now explore palatial manors like Lavish Lair or the manicured vineyards of Pleasant Piazza. Fortnite is basically a fancy European vacation now, and it feels a bit outside my personal budget.
Developers stuffed the new map with luxurious points of interest. Another example: Grand Glacier, a hotel nestled on a snow-capped mountain that looks like it’s straight out of Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel. If the mountains aren’t your thing, you can head over to the Ritzy Riviera, a picturesque shore-side town with villas nestled into a sloped hillside. At places like Classy Courts, decrypted playgrounds with broken concrete have been replaced with manicured hedges.
Image: Epic Games
Call me a traditionalist, but I like to do dumb shit in Fortnite. I personally play as Kakashi from Naruto, and style him with an Among Us backpack as I regale other players with emotes like the Gangnam Style dance. Part of what made me fall in love with Fortnite was the garishness of it all. It’s a bright, cartoony game where you can go fishing with Ariana Grande, then turn around and scuffle with Goku. In the new season, a lot of that whimsy is still there: Peter Griffin is now a skin, and appears as an NPC you can fight. But that tone doesn’t seem to be reflected in the map, which forms a central part of the game.
It isn’t that previous maps were lacking in high-end locations. Prior to the return of the OG map, Chapter 4 Season 4 added the cyberpunk-inspired Mega City and the sweeping Japanese estates of Kenjutsu Crossing. While Kenjutsu resembles the more elaborate locales in the current iteration of the game, some of those additions still evoked a sort of surrealism: Mega City’s sci-fi elements felt true to the less realistic elements of Fortnite.
All that said, locations are subject to change with each update. So it’s possible that further meteors or other ill fates might befall some of these fancy locales and bring back some of the good old Fortnite charm — rough hedges and all.
Opinion by Bibbi Abruzzini, Nina Sangma (new delhi, india)
Inter Press Service
NEW DELHI, India, Dec 06 (IPS) – We, a global coalition of over 50 civil society and human rights organizations from over 30 countries have co-developed the “Civil Society Manifesto for Ethical AI”, a groundbreaking initiative aiming to steer AI policies towards safeguarding rights and deconolonising AI discourse. We question, and we are not the only ones: whose voices, ideas and values matter in AI ?
“If Silicon Valley was a country it would probably be the richest in the world. So how genuinely committed is Big Tech and AI to funding and fostering human rights over profits? The barebones truth is that if democracy was profitable, human rights lawyers and defenders including techtivists from civil society organizations wouldn’t be sitting around multistakeholder engagement tables demanding accountability from Big Tech and AI. How invested are they in real social impact centred on rights despite glaring evidence to the contrary?,” asks Nina Sangma, of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, a regional organization founded in 1992 by Indigenous Peoples’ movements with over 40 members across 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
We are currently at a critical juncture where most countries lack a comprehensive AI policy or regulatory framework. The sudden reliance on AI and other digital technologies has introduced new – and often “invisible” – vulnerabilities, and we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, literally melting from the effects of climate change.
Some things we have already seen though: AI is still a product of historical data representing inequities and inequalities. A study analyzing 100+ AI-generated images using Midjourney’s diffusion models revealed consistent biases, including depicting older men for specialized jobs, binary gender representations, featuring urban settings regardless of location, and generating images predominantly reinforcing “ageism, sexism and classism”, with a bias toward a Western perspective.
Data sources continue to be “toxic”. AI tools learn from vast amounts of training data, often consisting of billions of inputs scraped from the internet. This data risks to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and often contains toxic content like pornography, misogyny, violence, and bigotry. Furthermore, researchers found bias in up to 38.6% of ‘facts’ used by AI.
Despite increased awareness, the discourse surrounding AI, like the technology itself, has predominantly been shaped by “Western, whiteness, and wealth”. The discrimination that we see today is the result of a cocktail of “things gone wrong” – ranging from discriminatory hiring practices based on gender and race, to the prevalence of algorithms biases.
“Biases are not a coincidence. Artificial intelligence is a machine that draws conclusions from data based on statistical models, therefore, the first thing it eliminates is variations. And in the social sphere that means not giving visibility to the margins,” declares Judith Membrives i Llorens, head of digital policies at Lafede.cat – Organitzacions per la Justícia Global.
“AI development isn’t the sole concern here. The real issue stems from keeping citizens in the dark, restricting civic freedoms and the prevalence of polarisation and prejudice on several dimensions of our societies. This results in unequal access, prevalent discrimination, and a lack of transparency in technological processes and beyond. Despite acknowledging the potential and power of these technologies, it is clear that many are still excluded and left at the margins due to systemic flaws. Without addressing this, the global development of AI and other emerging technologies won’t be inclusive. Failure to act now and to create spaces of discussion for new visions to emerge, will mean these technologies continue to reflect and exacerbate these disparities,” says Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, civil society leader in Burkina Faso and across the Sahel region, and Chair of the global civil society network Forus.
The Civil Society Manifesto for Ethical AI asks, what are the potential pitfalls of using current AI systems to inform future decisions, particularly in terms of reinforcing prevailing disparities?
Today, as EU policymakers are expected to close a political agreement for the AI Act, we ask, do international standards for regulating machine learning include the voice of the people? With the Manifesto we explore, challenge, disrupt, and reimagine the underlying assumptions within this discourse but also to broaden the discussion to incorporate communities beyond the traditional “experts.” Nothing about us, without us.
“We want Artificial Intelligence, but created by and for everyone, not only for a few,” adds Judith Membrives i Llorens.
From the “Internet of Cows” to the impact of AI on workers’ rights and on civic space, developed by over 50 civil society organisations, the Manifesto includes 17 case studies on their experiences, visions and stories around AI. With each story, we want to weave a different path to build new visions on AI systems that expand rather than restrict freedoms worldwide.
“The current development of AI is by no means an inevitable path. It is shaped by Big Tech companies because we let them. It is time for the civil society to stand up for their data rights,” says Camilla Lohenoja, of SASK, the workers’ rights organisation of the trade unions of Finland.
“Focusing on ethical and transparent technology also means giving equal attention to the fairness and inclusivity of its design and decision-making processes. The integrity of AI is shaped as much by its development as by its application,” says Hanna Pishchyk of the youth group Digital Grassroots.
Ultimately, the Manifesto aims to trigger a global – and not just sectorial and Western-dominated dialogue – on AI development and application.
Civil society is here not just as a mere token in multistakeholder spaces, we bring forward what others often dismiss, and we actively participate worldwide in shaping a technological future that embraces inclusivity, accountability, and ethical advancements.
Bibbi Abruzzini, Forus and Nina Sangma, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)
A majority of voters across seven Western countries, including the United States, France and the United Kingdom, believe their democracy is in worse shape than it was five years ago, according to a poll whose results were seen by POLITICO.
Nearly seven in 10 American respondents said the state of democracy had declined in recent years, while 73 percent of poll takers shared the same opinion in France. In the United Kingdom, more than six out of 10 respondents said that democracy was working less well than five years ago, according to the poll which was carried out by Ipsos in September.
The results reveal widespread angst about the state of democracy ahead of major votes in the United States, the U.K, and the European Union in the year ahead — as well as mixed views of the 27-member union.
In all but one of the countries — which also included Croatia, Italy, Poland and Sweden — about half of voters reported being “dissatisfied” with the way democracy was working, while majorities agreed with the statement that the system is “rigged” in favor of the rich and powerful, and that “radical change” was needed.
Only in Sweden did a clear majority, 58 percent, say they were satisfied with how the system of government was working.
Among EU countries, the survey revealed deeply contrasting views on the state of the Union. A majority of respondents in the countries surveyed said they were in favor of the EU, but a plurality in all the countries said they were dissatisfied with the state of democracy at the EU level, while only tiny minorities reported feeling they had any influence over EU decisions.
Those views were offset by higher levels of satisfaction at the way democracy worked at the local level.
Only in Croatia was satisfaction with democracy at the EU level, at 26 percent, higher than it was for democracy at the national level, at 21 percent.
The results of the survey will give EU leaders food for thought as they gear up for European Parliament elections. While voters elect the Parliament directly, the choice of who gets the top jobs — such as president of the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, or the head of the EU Council, which gathers heads of state and government — is indirect. National leaders pick their nominees, which are then submitted to the Parliament for conformation.
In recent years, EU-level political parties have been trying to make the process more democratic by asking leaders to give top jobs to the lead candidates, or Spitzenkandidaten, from the party that wins the most votes in the election. But that system was ignored by leaders after the last election, when they rejected the lead candidate of the conservative European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, in favor of current Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
While all the major parties say they are committed to proposing lead candidates ahead of the next EP election, leaders haven’t publicly committed to follow the system.
“These findings suggest that a key challenge for the EU ahead of the 2024 European Parliament elections will be to leverage continuing support for the EU project to help restore positive perceptions of EU institutions, agencies and bodies,” Christine Tresignie, managing director of Ipsos European public affairs, said in a statement.
The poll was carried out September 21-30 via an online random probability survey. Respondents aged 16 and over were questioned in Croatia, France, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, while in the United States adults aged 18 and over were polled.
I hear frequently from those in business that younger employees, directly out of K-12 or higher education, are looking for direction.
They want step-by-step guidance on how to tackle challenges.
That’s because some of today’s learners graduate without ever being required to process information, think critically or seek paths forward that are not explicitly spelled out for them.
The rigid structure of the traditional K-12 education system leaves little room for students to engage in real-world problem-solving scenarios. In many cases it stifles creativity and curiosity, discouraging students from questioning established norms or exploring alternative perspectives.
While curriculums vary across different regions and educational systems, in most cases a heavy emphasis on grades and standardized test scores prioritizes rote memorization over developing students’ capacity to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information critically and independently.
Students are not actively involved in shaping their learning journey. They should be. Our world presents increasingly complex challenges. Education must adapt so that it nurtures problem solvers and critical thinkers.
That’s why I’m a fan of personalized and competency-based learning environments, in which young people do learn these skills.
These environments encourage students to make important decisions about what, when and where they learn. Students assess their own strengths and weaknesses and set learning goals in partnership with their teachers.
Students are not pushed ahead until they have demonstrated competence, but can advance rapidly in areas in which they excel and delve deeper into subjects that interest them.
Teachers support and provide resources, but the responsibility for learning lies with each student.
When I was a school superintendent in Maine, the five cities and towns that comprised our learning community wanted assurances that graduates of our three high schools would be adequately prepared for college or career training opportunities after high school.
We set out to meet that challenge and better understand the extent to which personalized, competency-based learning could prepare our learners for an uncertain future.
What we learned is that when high school students develop the skills required for success in college or vocational training, they are more likely to pursue postsecondary education and opportunities.
Our world presents increasingly complex challenges. Education must adapt so that it nurtures problem solvers and critical thinkers.
In one of our high schools, postsecondary enrollment had become an area of particular community concern after students started showing less interest in postgraduate opportunities. Following full-scale implementation of a proficiency-based system in 2011, postsecondary enrollment increased to 71 percent by 2018, up from an average rate of 59 percent over the 10 years prior to the district’s shift to personalized, competency-based learning.
But the true indicator of impact came directly from students and their eventual professors. One professor reached out to tell me how impressed he was by the self-advocacy that students from our district demonstrated.
Since my time in Maine, personalized, competency-based learning has gained momentum as a transformative solution for equipping students with the skills and tools needed for navigating an ever-evolving future.
The recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Education calling on more states to innovate and pilot new approaches to assessment represents a significant shift toward innovation over compliance and signals that there will be more opportunities for collaboration between federal and state entities in building a new framework for the nation’s K-12 system.
But like all organizations, education institutions can be resistant to change.
Some schools or districts may not be fully aware of the flexible policies that exist or may feel uncertain about how to translate those policies into practice. Unclear guidance, conventional parental expectations and fear of reporting requirements can limit districts’ willingness to experiment with different teaching approaches.
As I witnessed firsthand in Maine, early adopters of student-centered learning practices will inevitably face a myriad of challenges as they endeavor to reshape a system deeply rooted in well-established cultural norms.
Innovation carries inherent risks and often lacks established support networks, services and reporting structures. Resistance from educators, students and parents whose learners benefit from the status quo can quickly sideline well-positioned efforts to better support all learners.
Despite these challenges, I remain steadfast in my belief that embracing a more progressive educational approach is not merely an option; it’s a strategic imperative if we hope to nurture a generation ready to thrive in a dynamic and unpredictable world.
In a time when adaptability and mastery of diverse skills are paramount, competency-based learning transcends traditional education models.
By tailoring learning experiences to individuals’ strengths and preferred pace, personalized, competency-based learning not only fosters a deeper understanding of subjects but also cultivates independence and self-confidence.
Virgel Hammonds is chief learning officer at KnowledgeWorks, which partners with national policymakers and local learning communities to create learner-centered policies and practices. He previously served as superintendent of the RSU 2 school district in Maine.
This story about competency-based learning was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.
Related articles
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
GAZA, Palestine, Dec 05 (IPS) – The 7-day ceasefire brought respite to everyone; hostages were reunited with their families and desperately needed aid went into Gaza. We need more of this; all hostages released and considerably more aid and protection for Palestinian civilians.
But since the resumption of hostilities in Gaza on 1 December, 700 Palestinians have reportedly been killed in addition to the 15,500 already killed. Israeli military operations have expanded into southern Gaza, forcing tens of thousands of others into increasingly compressed spaces, desperate to find food, water, shelter and safety.
Nowhere is safe in Gaza and there is nowhere left to go.
The conditions required to deliver aid to the people of Gaza do not exist. If possible, an even more hellish scenario is about to unfold, one in which humanitarian operations may not be able to respond.
What we see today are shelters with no capacity, a health system on its knees, a lack of clean drinking water, no proper sanitation and poor nutrition for people already mentally and physically exhausted: a textbook formula for epidemics and a public health disaster.
The quantities of relief supplies and fuel allowed in are utterly insufficient. Despite the enormous efforts of the Egyptian and Palestinian Red Crescent Societies, UN agencies and other partners, the use of only the Rafah crossing – meant for pedestrians – to bring in trucks of goods does not work.
Humanitarian operations cannot be kept on a drip feed of fuel. It is the foundation of social services and our operations; including for hospitals, desalination plants, clean drinking water and sanitation.
Space for the humanitarian response allowed inside Gaza is constantly shrinking. The two most important routes – the coastal road and Salahaddin road – are now cut off to our teams and trucks, hindering our ability to help people wherever they are.
The UN and NGOs alone cannot support a population of 2.2 million. Commercial and public sectors must be allowed to bring supplies into Gaza to restock markets. This must include fuel in a manner which ensures Israel’s security.
Announcements of establishing so-called safe zones and tented cities without assurances that people will be able to move freely and that assistance can be delivered where there is need are alarming. These zones cannot be safe nor humanitarian when unilaterally declared.
The UN stands ready to work with all parties to expand the number of UN-managed safe shelters and to deliver assistance where it is needed.
Lynn Hastings is the Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Footnote: Asked about news reports that Israel may not renew Lynn Hastings’ visa, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters December 1 : “Yes, we’ve been informed by the Israeli authorities that they would not renew the visa of Ms. Hastings past its due date at some point later this month.
As a matter of policy, we, anywhere around the world, UN people do not overstay their visas, right? I mean, that’s just a fact. I can only — and I’ve said this before — reiterate the Secretary-General’s full confidence in Ms. Hastings, the way she’s conducted herself, and the way she’s done her work. Being the Humanitarian Coordinator in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is challenging work, to say the least, both in terms of the humanitarian situation and the political situation”.
Nothing has changed our lives more this year than the advances made in artificial intelligence — and they have the potential to alter our lives in even more dramatic ways down the road.
So it’s a no-brainer that Sam Altman, co-founder and recently returned chief executive of the once-little-known OpenAI, should be named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine when the selection is announced Wednesday.
Altman has already cracked Time’s shortlist, joining candidates from varied backgrounds, including world leaders like Xi Jinping and entertainment phenomenon Taylor Swift. The selection ultimately comes down to an “individual or group who most shaped the previous 12 months, for better or for worse.”
But Time has often given “agents of change” its yearly honor — just look at 2021 winner Elon Musk — and Altman certainly fits that bill.
No other innovation in the past year has had an impact in such disparate realms. OpenAI publicly launched its ChatGPT chatbot late last year, and as the technology grew viral in 2023, it upended the stock market, Silicon Valley and companies that wouldn’t normally be classified as technology businesses. The ensuing product development and surge in generative AI investment revitalized a tech industry that had sunk into the doldrums amid a pandemic hangover.
Admittedly, it will take time for companies to realize the true financial benefits of AI: Nvidia Corp. NVDA, -2.68%
is among the few to generate serious money from the frenzy so far. But market researcher IDC predicted that global spending on AI, including software, hardware and services for AI-centric systems will reach $154 billion this year, up 27% from a year ago. That total could zoom above $300 billion by 2026.
And AI isn’t only impacting the corporate world. The technology is already affecting our daily lives, and it will have even deeper effects going forward. Chatbots are getting smarter on websites, facilitating better customer service. They’re starting to alter the workplace as well, spitting out mostly coherent marketing copy, research and even, gasp, news articles — albeit with plenty of errors.
Altman himself has been the face of OpenAI in the past year. He’s talked up the technology, but he also appeared at congressional hearings in May to discuss potential regulation of AI, testifying that “if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.” His recent firing and quick rehiring by OpenAI and its small, nonprofit board late last month fueled a veritable media storm before the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S.
Time chooses its persons of the year for their impact, not because they’re saints. And Altman’s own story is not without controversy. The recent brouhaha over his leadership of OpenAI is believed to have been caused by a deep schism over the ethics of AI development. The board seemingly wanted more guardrails and precautions, and feared that rushed development could irrevocably doom mankind.
Altman, who also wooed Microsoft Corp. MSFT, -1.43%
to become an investor in OpenAI, emerged the victor in the upheaval with his own company’s altruistic board. Had Altman truly been fired from OpenAI, Microsoft was planning to hire him, and nearly every employee at OpenAI was ready to quit and follow him there. While OpenAI faces plenty of competition, including from Alphabet Inc.’s GOOG, -2.02%
GOOGL, -1.96%
Google, Altman should continue to be the face of AI development, for good and for bad, even as he has advocated industry regulation.
The debut and influence of ChatGPT and follow-on AI products are having the biggest impact on tech development since the invention of the iPhone. Altman is at the center of it and leading the charge. Whether he can keep the lid on Pandora’s Box or not depends on many factors, but he and the company he leads are clearly driving a new tech movement that affects us all, whether we like it or not.
Fossil fuels require recurring new exploration and development expenditures, while renewables are inherently self-replenishing. Credit: Bigstock
Opinion by Philippe Benoit (washington dc)
Inter Press Service
This significant event, however, masks a more striking possible future: One in which total global energy use peaks and energy’s weight in world affairs diminishes.
The modern era has been marked by increasing energy demand, largely driven by rising populations (more people using energy) and growing economies and incomes fueling increased energy consumption per capita.
Significantly, energy use drops under the IEA’s climate scenarios, driven by more robust climate policies than currently exist. While these scenarios may eventually materialize to counter the threat of climate change, they remain uncertain.
There are, however, three forces operating largely independent of climate considerations that are likely to lead to peak global energy use before the end of this century. They are longer-term downward global population trends, structural shifts in emerging economies as their incomes rise and continued progress in energy efficiency.
Ever since Malthus coined his theory, there have been fears that exponential population growth would outstrip food supply. Now, rather than uncontrolled population growth, the projections point to a global peak around 2085 or earlier, dropping thereafter to below 9 billion people by this century’s end. This new trend removes what had been an important source of upward pressure on global energy use.
But even there, population, structural and energy efficiency dynamics are ultimately likely to have their effect. For example, China’s energy demand is now projected to peak later this decade.
Why is this “peak energy” significant? Because it will have a variety of economic, policy, geopolitical and even security impacts.
For example, it points to a future global economic landscape in which energy plays a diminished role. This includes a lower share of energy in global GDP, especially as economies continue to grow, and even potentially a peak in energy spending in absolute terms after accounting for inflation.
One dynamic likely to drive this change in spending is the shift from large capital investments involved in expanding energy systems or transitioning to a low emissions future, to the less costly maintenance and periodic replacement of assets inherent in a peaked system. Another is the ongoing displacement of fossil fuels that require recurring new exploration and development expenditures with renewables which are inherently self-replenishing.
Renewables, moreover, typically draw from national resources such as local sunshine and wind patterns rather than foreign trade. As these resources move into a leading role in a peak energy future, domestic policies and considerations should gain importance for governments relative to trade and other international ones.
Other affected areas will include diplomacy, including the lessened importance of petrostates for the U.S., China and the military, such as a possible redeployment of the U.S. Fifth Fleet from the Persian Gulf. These shifts may already begin to be triggered by peak oil and gas even before the advent of peak energy but will likely deepen under the latter.
Various developments could counter energy peaking, such as a surge in energy-intensive activities like space tourism. Another frightening possibility is widespread war as seen last century. Combat consumes a great deal of fuel and reconstructing buildings and infrastructure destroyed by war is energy-intensive. Alternatively, the discovery of a cheap, clean and accessible energy source such as fusion could lead to creative new ways to use that energy.
Conversely, more robust climate policies can accelerate peak energy. For example, the IEA’s Net-Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario foresees a global energy use in 2050 which is 15 percent lower than today’s total. This drop is driven largely by strengthened energy efficiency programs that counteract the upward pressures of population and economic growth.
However, in contrast to peak coal or oil being potentially followed by significant declines in their use over time, peak energy is unlikely to presage a subsequent large drop in consumption as growing economies will buoy demand. In fact, as GDP growth continues through the next century and beyond, energy demand could once again start to rise as, notably, energy efficiency gains reach their limits.
In a broader sense, just as history has included the stone, bronze and iron ages, we have been living since the Industrial Revolution in an energy age. But this age, during which energy has dominated so many economic, geopolitical and other dimensions, may be coming to an end with peak energy.
Beyond the projections of oil, gas and coal demand reaching its heights this decade, and notwithstanding the current growth in renewables, overall energy use may also hit a high point later this century. This “peak energy” is a future we should now start contemplating and analyzing.
(First published in The Hill on November 19, 2023)
Philippe Benoit is an adjunct senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, research director for Global Infrastructure Analytics and Sustainability 2050 and was previously division head for energy efficiency at the International Energy Agency.
Research team in the Arctic. Professor Tjernström is standing on the left.
Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm, sweden)
Inter Press Service
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec 04 (IPS) – This year’s UN Climate Change Conference is taking place in Dubai from 30 November to 12 December. The so-called COP summits are organised every year and constitute a means for the global community to agree on ways to address the climate crisis, such as limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, supporting vulnerable communities to adapt to the effects of climate change, and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
More than 70,000 delegates are attending the COP28 in Dubai. Main delegates are the 47 representatives of the member states (called Parties), which constitute the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Business leaders, young people, climate scientists, Indigenous Peoples, journalists, and various other experts and stakeholders are also among the participants. Officially, COP 28 stands for the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC.
UNFCCC was established in 1992 to combat “dangerous human interference with the climate system”, in part by limiting the greenhouse gas emissions that compromise Earth’s entire ecosystem, a prerequisite for human existence. Among other items on its agenda COP 28 will address progress made in accordance with the Paris Agreement of 2015, when 195 Parties of the UNFCCC agreed to keep the rise of global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F), compared to pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F).
To gain a scientific perspective of the meaning and influence of COP28, IPS asked Professor Tjernström about his views on climate change and what he assumes might be done to amend it. Michael Tjernström is since 2001 professor of Meteorology at Stockholm University. He has spent several periods at institutions such as CIRES, The Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and The Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), all in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Professor Tjernström’s main research interests concern climate change in the Arctic. He has participated in several scientific expeditions to Arctic areas and is since 2011 a member of the International Arctic Science Committee.
Michael Tjernström
IPS: Professor Tjernström, can the outcomes of COP28 drastically affect current climate changes?
Michael Tjernström: The COPs are a necessary and essential factor when it comes to addressing climate change. A COP summit might be likened to a regular check-up visit to the dentist. It can be painful, but is necessary for good dental hygiene. The dentist might find that your teeth are in a very bad state and to save them, urgent measures have to be taken – caries has to be amended, maybe a bad tooth has to be extracted, dental bridges inserted, etc . The point is that the dentist is an expert and you have to trust him. However, the decision to save your teeth is all yours. In a similar fashion the COPs intend to amend already present damages to the climate, determine their causes and try to prevent a negative development. But it is up to the members to act.
IPS: How do you perceive the UN’s role in this endeavour?
Michael Tjernström: There is absolutely no other global organization other than the UN which would be able to organize and be in charge of such a process. No other national, international, political or private, organisation would be able to establish a global consensus and general awareness, as well as maintaining the perseverance, stamina, objectivity and legal strength to do so. An endurance against all odds, but nevertheless made possible through the UN’s established rules, combined with its global and local outreach. Of course, there are cracks and concerns, but the administrative structure and operations of the UN are firmly based on the commitment of its member states.
People, who in general are prone to criticize the UN system are often only perceiving the actions of the Security Council and how its commitment is crippled by the veto power of its five permanent members. However, this does not apply to the UNFCCC and its scientific support organisation, ICCP. As a scientist and propagator for awareness about climate change, I perceive the lack of understanding the great importance of the UN as a marketing problem. People are not aware of what this global organisation stands for, and even less so – its support of the global scientific community.
IPS: Will you attend the COP summit in Dubai?
Michael Tjernström: No, most scientists have through their research already made their fair contribution to efforts to combat climate change. The current state of research, results and warnings are comprehensively explained and diffused through the ICCP reports and scientists have thus no need to attend the COPs. Whether or not politicians listen to science or not is not determined by my presence at a COP.
COP summits are more politically than scientifically motivated. However, they are based on the factual basis provided by ICCP reports. The COPs mainly attract other stakeholders than scientists, such as government representatives, spokespersons for environmentalist pressure groups and lobbyists representing the interests of fossil fuel-based industries, as well as oil and coal producing companies. Many such lobbyists try to find a place among decision makers, while environmentalists might be looking for political scapegoats.
People and organisations are trying to highlight their own, often specific interests, some of them being based on doubtful assumptions and moral priorities. Environmentalists have often demanded that certain interest groups be excluded from COP summits, like those lobbying for the use of fossil fuels, interests of oil producers, as well as industrialists who, for the sake of their own profit, try to minimize the threat from global warming.
Nevertheless, it is important that influential stakeholders are present . The global outreach demands this. Everyone has to be allowed to have their voice and concerns heard, as well as being provided with an opportunity to be informed about scientific achievements, new environmentally friendly technologies, and the threats of global warming.
Industrialization based on non-polluting and zero emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as new eco-friendly technology, are essential for change and improvement. Environmentalism’s contributions are also important. Like most revolutionary movements radical environmentalists highlight political and capitalist motivational reasons and misconduct, while they demand change and sacrifice. Historically did socialists and suffragettes contribute to emancipation and justice. However, some revolutionaries have turned into fanatics, and some have concentrated on relatively minor but easily targeted issues while ignoring an overall picture. For example, opponents to air travel are maybe not fully aware of the fact that it actually contributes to only three percent of global greenhouse emissions, while private cars and other fossil-fuel based transportation means account for much more of carbon dioxide emissions . It might be stated that it would be more beneficial for the environment to limit the use of your car, than avoid travelling by air. Veganism may be considered as beneficial when it comes to emission of greenhouse gases, though methane emissions from ruminating animals constitutes less than five percent of greenhouse gas emissions. If we could stop throwing away a third of all the food we produce, this would be much more efficient and would also have other benefits. However, every effort to limit greenhouse emissions is worthy of attention, though decisive and comprehensive political actions are particularly crucial for achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. It is not enough to limit them; they must be eliminated.
IPS: But can COPs really have the impact you could wish for?
Michael Tjernström: In several respects, development is moving in the wrong direction, especially when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Many confide in badly informed, or even deceitful, social media and populist politicians. In certain circles a negative attitude to research and science is thriving. Science might by such groups be perceived as an essentially separate activity, practiced by an intellectual elite devoting itself to mutual admiration.
The COPs make participants aware of the fatal threat of global warming. But more than that, it also makes the general public aware and therefore participants can be held accountable for their actions, or lack thereof, and are through legally binding agreements forced to take social and economic measures to amend the ongoing destruction of natural resources, and the atmosphere.
IPS: What exactly is ICCP and what is its connection with the COPs
Michael Tjernström: Generally speaking, people are not knowledgeable, most don’t know what ICCP is. The task of ICCP, i.e. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities and it does so by examining all relevant scientific literature on the subject. This comprehensive review and dissemination of scientific insights and research results include natural, economic and social impacts and risks. ICCP also covers possible responsive options. IPCC does not conduct its own original research, its mandate is to survey the research situation, while aiming at being objective and comprehensive, and only openly published results that have already been reviewed by experts can be used. Thousands of scientists and other experts then volunteer to review the findings and publications of ICCP, before its key findings are compiled into a Synthesis Report intended for policymakers and the general public. Experts have described the work of ICCP as the biggest peer review of the global scientific community. COP28 will discuss the 6th ICCP Synthesis Report, issued in March 2023.
Most climate-related risks assessed in the Fifth Synthesis Report, issued in 2014, are in the Sixth Report deemed to be higher than earlier predicted and projected long-term impacts are worse than they were assumed to be in 2014. The Sixth Synthesis Report highlights that climatic and non-climatic risks will increasingly interact, creating compound and cascading risks, which will be extremely difficult to manage. The confidence of the conclusions has also been gradually increasing across the reports.
The development of climatological research is quite fast, the lag in actual efforts to halt global warming is mainly to be found in decisive decision-making. The original ICCP reports contain tens of thousands of pages that few decision-makers can assimilate. The summary for policy makers is reviewed and edited by several stakeholders. Efforts may thus be made to mitigate alarming findings and adapt them to political concerns. However, changes and adaptions are carefully wetted in order to secure that none of them contradict actual and fact-based research results, predictions and warnings.
IPS: Do you perceive yourself as a pessimist, or as an optimist?
Michael Tjernström: I am both hopeful and worried. As a researcher I cannot allow myself to fall victim to paralyzing dystopias. As a scientist I contribute to the measurement of climatological processes, while taking the pulse of the current situation, but also looking for trends and measures to mitigate, and perhaps even hinder, a worrisome development. Accordingly, a scientist has to be a kind of optimist even in the face of despair. Furthermore, I consider that my role as a researcher has to involve the popularization and dissemination of research results. A role I appreciate and feel comfortable with.
It is reasonable that we in the West, who so far have contributed by far the most to the ongoing climatological damage, also take our responsibility when it comes to mitigation and adaptation. We have the technological, historical and scientific prerequisites to make amends for all the damage we have caused and should therefore also go into the breach for the realisation of necessary improvements, while contributing to the economic means to do so.
But the picture is complicated. China is making great progress in climate research, but is at the same time contributing to the world’s largest emissions of greenhouse gases in total, and is number two in the world in per capita emissions, yet is still claiming they should still be treated as a developing country and indeed has a large poor population in the face of a rapidly growing middle class. Africa is lagging behind in its industrial development and consequently have limited emissions, but must nevertheless already now end its dependence on fossil fuels.
We in the West live well and safely and could without any major problems dismiss a lot of the gratuitous comfort we currently are enjoying. The drama is undeniable, even when the Paris Agreement was signed it was by some researchers pointed out that the 1.5 target was unattainable in reality. There is much talk about tipping points, when much of the existing ecological balance suddenly collapses, and that this might happen at a two degree rise in global temperature. But contributing factors are manifold and I don’t believe it will be happening in the near future. There is no really compelling evidence for most of these suggested tipping points. The most important thing is to immediately stop the burning of fossil fuels. In spite of all, I assume that much can and will be done to stop the worrisome development.
IPS interchange with Professor Tjernström was quite extensive and informative. In a following article we will return to Professor Tjernström describing his own research and thoughts about current, and future climatological changes.
Next year will mark seven decades since the U.S. Supreme Court declared racially segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. Even the current Supreme Court’s conservatives have embraced that Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Yet, 70 years after Brown, a key obstacle to racial equality in education continues to be white resistance to racial integration and to adequate funding for the education of Black and Latino children.
In the 1950s and 1960s, white resistance took the form of a revolt against integration and busing.
Private “white academies” — also known as segregation academies — sprang up to preserve the advantages held by the previously white-only public schools.
Today, one form of ongoing resistance is what scholars label “hoarding opportunities.” By using zoning and districting to create and perpetuate overwhelmingly white spaces and declining to share resources with Black and Latino children, white Americans limit the reach of integration and perpetuate inequality.
Not surprisingly, in 2022, the Government Accountability Office declared that school segregation continues unabated. The agency reported that even as the nation’s student population has diversified, 43 percent of its schools are segregated, and 18.5 million students, more than one-third of all the students in the country, are enrolled in highly segregated schools (75 percent or more of the students identify as a single race or ethnicity).
The Midwest — with 59 percent of all schools classified as segregated — is the leader in segregation.
The same GAO study showed that when new school districts are formed, they tend to be far more racially homogeneous than the districts they replace.
A key obstacle to racial equality in education continues to be white resistance.
Direct evidence of white resistance to racial equity in education can be seen in a survey experiment my co-authors and I conducted in 2021 that closely replicated findings from earlier periods. The study shows that white Americans continue to be reluctant to support increased funding for schools for Black children.
In our experiment, 552 white Americans were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group was asked: “Do you favor or oppose expanding funding for pre-kindergarten programs so that it is available for poor children nationwide? The $24 billion a year cost would be paid for by higher taxes.”
The second group was asked the same question, except that “poor children” was replaced by “poor Black children.”
About 75 percent of respondents in the first group said they favor spending tax dollars for such a program. However, in the group asked about “poor Black children,” just 68 percent were in favor. This is a significant gap in support.
The experiment suggests that among white Americans, support for public education funding for poor children is robust. But less so for poor Black children.
White resistance to desegregation and school funding for Black students has severe consequences for racial equality and the economy.
Research published this month shows that Black students who attended Southern desegregated schools in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s experienced positive lifelong cognitive effects.
And data from the U.S. Department of Education still shows “substantial” racial gaps in reading and math competencies, high school graduation rates and, inevitably, college entry.
A recent Brookings report estimated that if the racial gap in education and employment had been eliminated, the U.S. GDP from 1990 to 2019 would have been $22.9 trillion larger. This would benefit us all.
The great promise of Brown was one of equal access to high-quality education. The hope was that income and other social disparities among white, Black and Latino people would dissipate over time. White resistance contributed to America not keeping this promise.
Policymakers, funders and education advocates must overcome white resistance to strengthen support for programs geared toward Black and Latino children.
This will help America’s quest to fulfill the promise of Brown. It’s time.
Alexandra Filindra is an associate professor of political science and psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago and a Public Voices Fellow through The OpEd Project. She is also the author of “Race, Rights and Rifles.”
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25144368/polygon_warhammer_40k_rogue_trader_lieutenant.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25144354/polygon_warhammer_40k_janris.jpg)
