Drought in the West threatens future of Glen Canyon dam and Lake Powell – Deseret News

Somewhere between Bullfrog, Utah, and the Hole in the Rock trailhead, Im following the distant rumbling of a waterfall, echoing between 500-foot walls of Navajo Sandstone. Not far from here is Cathedral in the Desert a famed grotto in the heart of Glen Canyon. It gives me chills, knowing that this sound hasnt been heard since 1968. After rounding one last corner of the canyon, there it is: a 60-foot cascade bellowing into a clear pool. Water in the desert is a magical thing. Its also a complicated thing.

As I crane my neck to take in the scale of the walls around me, something moves and catches my eye. A massive six-point stag is staring down at me. Seeing a fully grown deer here is stunning, not just because this part of the canyon only recently emerged, but because its almost completely isolated. No way in or out, except via the water or by rappelling down the falls. Dumbfounded, I take it as a good omen another sign of life finding its way again in the vast labyrinth in the rocks. But even in that moment, I know that from a different perspective the changes happening here are reason for unease, not revelry.

The reason a waterfall has been missing from the Colorado Plateau for 54 years isnt a simple story, but more of an embroiled history of water use in the western United States. It ends with Lake Powell, actually a reservoir, which has been dropping precipitously in recent years. In fact, in March, it withered below 3,525 feet above sea level, the lowest its been since before it was filled in May 1968.

Rui Ricardo for the Deseret News

Under the pressures of overuse and climate change, the fate of the entire Colorado River system is being redetermined in real time, amid what scientists think is the worst drought in over 1,200 years.

Now that the reservoir is below 3,525 feet, it has officially crossed the hydropower buffer which forces policymakers to start working on a solution. Every option seems to have immense challenges, with seven states invested in the matter and 40 million people who are directly affected by the Colorado River systems water. But given the hydrologic outlook of whats to come for the parched West, we cant do nothing.

And at the physical and metaphorical heart of this issue is Glen Canyon, home to one of the most contentious dams in the world.

Thousands of years ago, ancestral Puebloan people inhabited what would someday be called Glen Canyon, farming in its side canyons and building granaries. According to the National Park Service, 19 American Indian tribes and bands have an association with Glen Canyon including contemporary descendants of the people who left behind the thousands of archeological sites in the canyon.

Later, in 1776, came the crossings of the Spanish friars Domnguez and Escalante, and the migration of Latter-day Saint settlers on the Hole-in-the-Rock Expedition in 1880. Along the way, there were a few disappointing attempts at gold and mineral extraction. In the early 1950s, a recreation industry began to blossom with river runners flocking to the canyon to enjoy its calm, riffled water. Katie Lee was one of those river runners, describing the canyon as One-hundred and eighty-four miles of pure Eden. One hundred twenty-five side canyons, each of them different, each with its own personality.

All 125 side canyons and those river miles became ghosts of the past when Glen Canyon Dam was commissioned in 1956 under the Colorado River Storage Project Act. The sweeping legislation also paved the way for Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Blue Mesa dams farther north in the Colorado River basin. But Glen Canyon was by far the largest of them all its hydropower would bankroll much of the dam infrastructure for the Upper Basin states.

This collection of dams, especially Glen Canyon, was a crowning achievement for the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency charged with managing water in the West. Along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the bureau erected more than 75,000 dams across the country before 1980, with the stated goal of not letting a drop of water be wasted by flowing to the ocean. Author Charles Wilkinson describes this time as the big build up a frenzy of development that reshaped the country.

But with development came pushback. In 1956, the bureau and lawmakers had to grapple with an increasingly organized conservation movement, led by the Sierra Club and its director David Brower. Original plans for a dam upstream on the Green River at Echo Park in Dinosaur National Monument were effectively shut down by nationwide pressure, led by campaigns from the Sierra Club.

But in exchange for halting the Echo Park Dam, Brower ceded the battle for an alternative dam downstream. In Glen Canyon. He would go on to call it the greatest failure of his life.

After making several trips through the canyon, Brower echoed what Wallace Stegner once told him, Echo Park doesnt hold a candle to Glen. Reeling from the sting of losing Glen Canyon, Brower and the growing membership of the Sierra Club ramped up a national campaign that successfully blocked two proposed Grand Canyon dams the project shuttered after pilot holes were drilled into the Grand Canyon walls (which can still be seen today at mile 40 on the Colorado River).

It took 17 years to fill Lake Powell after Glen Canyon Dam was completed in 1963. By the early 1980s, the reservoir had backed up 186 miles of the mighty Colorado River, creating an inland sea with a shoreline greater than the Pacific coast of the U.S. There was a lot of water. Almost too much. In 1983, the already-brimming reservoir was besieged by one of the largest runoffs in recorded history, maxing out the facilitys spillway tunnels. The torrent of cavitation around the dam nearly brought the structure down.

The reservoir remained mostly full through the end of the century. But in the early 2000s, a series of dry winters started to whittle away at its water level. In five short years, Lake Powell had gone from almost 100% full to 34% of capacity. While the science of climate change was understood, its impact on the Western water supply was still murky. When a landmark study was released in 2008 by Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography titled When Will Lake Mead Go Dry? the conversation began to turn. The study projected that under a warming climate, Lake Powell and Lake Mead would be mostly empty, most of the time in the decades to come. The analysis shocked the Western water community and ruffled feathers at the bureau.

Rui Ricardo for the Deseret News

The bureau didnt fully acknowledge the impacts of climate change on the system until four years later in the 2012 release of their Colorado River Supply and Demand Study. It too showed that without major changes in water management, lakes Powell and Mead the two biggest reservoirs in the country could dry up.

Dozens of studies have been produced in the years since, and our understanding of the rivers hydrology has evolved. What was once called drought a term implying a temporary event is now called aridification, or a thirstier environment that sucks water into the atmosphere.

We now know that the snowpack of the Rocky Mountains, which provides around 80% of the rivers water, isnt the only factor in determining seasonal inflows. Soil moisture, which has been sapped by repeated hot and dry years, can have an outstanding effect on the rivers runoff.

As a result, Lake Powell is a shadow of its former self. Its surface area is almost one-third of what it used to be. The Hite and Dangling Rope marinas have been abandoned indefinitely, and other marinas are temporarily closed while new ramps are built to lower water levels. At the time of publication, there is only one single-lane ramp open to launch boats at the Stateline auxiliary ramp.

The main boat ramp at Wahweap Marina in Lake Powell became inoperable in December 2021, due to low water levels. Pictured in October 2021.

Elliot Ross for the Deseret News

The Bureau of Reclamations most recent 2-year projections show Powell could sink below minimum power pool the level at which hydropower can no longer be generated this year. Within the next five years, the bureau projects it could drop near dead pool, the lowest level physically allowed by the dams river outlets.

If we really are a few dry months away from losing hydropower at the dam, some experts believe that its time to consider phasing out the reservoir entirely and storing what water is left downstream in Lake Mead. With more than 50 published climate studies suggesting a future with less water in the basin, the likelihood of Powell becoming a dead pool reservoir becomes more realistic with each passing month.

This begs the question: Should Glen Canyon be managed as a semi-forgotten holding tank that seasonally oscillates around its minimum release outlets? Or should it be reimagined as a kind of national park or monument, with the river flowing around the dam, kept in place as a backup facility? Whether you consider yourself pro- or anti-Lake Powell or neither, this is the reality before us.

The Colorado River Basin is comprised of seven states and Mexico. And somewhere in the middle of these seven states is an invisible line, drawn during the Colorado River Compact in 1922. When the seven states were tasked with dividing and allocating water rights of the Colorado River, they chose to split the basin in two: upper and lower. The agreement stated that each basin would be allotted the same amount of water and would be roughly divided along state boundaries. And while seemingly a fair deal, inequities soon became apparent. The Lower Basin is hot and dry, with large valleys of land irrigated by the river. The Upper Basin is mountainous, its melting snowpacks feeding most of the rivers water. One basin is where most of the water comes from, while the other is where most of the water is used.

A bare-bones summary of the law of the river is that whoever first put water to a beneficial use would assume a perpetual right to that water. In the early 20th century, California began developing massive amounts of Colorado River water for irrigation projects, says Dave Wegner, former staff director for the House of Representatives Water and Power Subcommittee. As early as the 1930s, congressmen in the Upper Basin felt the only way to protect their water future was to impound it somewhere upstream.

And so came the dam. But the impounded water of Lake Powell would never actually irrigate fields or supply the budding cities of the West. With the exception of a small diversion going to the town of Page, Arizona, the water behind the dam exists for Upper Basin states to meet a delivery obligation to Lake Mead, and so Lower Basin states dont get one drop more than theyre legally entitled to. In the words of author Annette McGivney: Lake Powell was designed to harness excess water, but the days of excess are over.

If Upper Basin water in Lake Powell was moved to Lake Mead, it wouldnt be a simple account transfer. The change in policy would be monumental and pulls at century-old trepidations from Upper Basin interests.

Not only did the prior appropriations doctrine imbued in the 1922 Colorado River Compact give California and its burgeoning population the largest cut of the river, but Lower Basin states have collectively used more than their allotted amount. Since the Lower Basin states of Nevada, Arizona and California utilize 100% of their share for agriculture, municipal and industrial needs, any additional water lost through evaporation and seepage as it moves through canals, aqueducts or reservoirs is effectively lost to the system.

If properly credited, theres no reason Upper Basin states couldnt store their water in Lake Mead instead of Powell as an intentionally created surplus. The Upper Basin has already expressed a desire for a protected pool in Powell, whereby water conserved upstream can be credited to them. The idea is the same here, except the protected pool would be in Mead.

A legal analysis by Larry MacDonnell, published in 2013 in The Water Report journal, found that the proposal to fill Lake Mead with the remnants of Lake Powells water supply is not precluded by any federal or state statutes. The questions about its feasibility are not essentially legal but hydrologic and political, he wrote.

In other words, the main obstacle would be getting states to agree to work together.

Interim guidelines for managing Powell and Mead were passed in 2007 to deal with drought in the early 2000s. Now, understanding this dry period isnt transitory and will likely get worse, these guidelines are set to be renegotiated by 2026. And that means Colorado River management is about to be overhauled in a serious way.

Bath tub rings around Lake Powellas seen here from Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monumentare stark visual reminders of the reservoirs rapid decline in recent years.

Elliot Ross for the Deseret News

The negotiations will center around a number of factors, including hydropower production.

Any phasing out or end of hydropower production will create challenges for those who get electricity from the dam and for those who use the money it generates.

The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority is one of the 174 utilities that receives power from the dam and would be one of the most impacted if or when it goes offline. According to an economic study commissioned by Glen Canyon Institute in 2015, the annual impact to the tribal utility would be around $1.3 million the difference of buying electricity on the open market. For residential customers, this would equate to an annual $1.83 increase. For the average residential customer on the Western grid, the increase would be around eight cents per month.

Hydropowers resource needs are becoming increasingly insatiable, endangering local water supplies to keep dams above power pool levels. Under Reclamations Drought Response Operations Agreement, water from smaller upstream units like Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Blue Mesa is being released at greater volumes to prop up Lake Powell.

Phasing out one of the Wests largest renewable energy plants wont be without consequence, but its important to remember its been operating well below capacity for over 15 years. If climate and runoff projections suggest its almost an inevitability, then it would make sense to start preparing now. As put by Brad Udall, senior water and climate research scientist, loss of power, while not calamitous, is concerning.

But out of all the complicated factors currently being brought to the desks of policymakers, one factor not being considered is the value of rivers, creeks, streams and ecosystems that have emerged in Glen Canyon an area almost the size of Barbados.

A visit to this island in the desert today would reveal La Gorce Arch perched a hundred feet above a sinuous side canyon in Davis Gulch. Streams meandering past swaying coyote willows and Fremont cottonwoods and evening primroses with bees sheltering in their petals. Gregory Natural Bridge one of the largest natural bridges in the country with an opening of 127 feet now stands 20 feet high after reemerging from the water last summer.

The Returning Rapids Project, a crew of river runners based out of Moab, Utah, is documenting the rivers restoration as Powell recedes. Mike DeHoff, the principal investigator of the team, describes how the project started, As the reservoir dropped from its high level, we tried to figure out what was happening in some of the mystery areas on river maps that say, area inundated by Lake Powell.

As Lake Powell recedes, rapids that have been hidden for years are returning to Cataract Canyon.

Tom Smart / Deseret News archive

At full pool, Lake Powell drowned half of Cataract Canyon, the 46-mile stretch of whitewater above Glen Canyon. Cataract is known for having some of the biggest whitewater on the continent, and in the 80s and 90s, that whitewater abruptly ended after the infamous Big Drop Three rapid the boundary between Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Using motors, rafters would have to push across 40 miles of reservoir flatwater amid jet skiers and houseboats to arrive at the takeout.

Today, most rafters who venture down Cataract probably wont notice that part of the canyon was ever drowned. The river is reestablishing a version of its former self, which John Wesley Powell who first mapped the river for the U.S. government in 1869 and after whom the reservoir was named described as rolling in solemn majesty ... in the depths of the earth.

DeHoff made a spreadsheet of the returned rapids to help river runners navigate the new sections of whitewater. With the help of fellow guide and friend Pete Lefebvre and wife Meg Flynn, who holds a masters in library science, they began combing through historical photos of the canyon to gauge how much the rapids had been restored, and how much more they had to go. To date, seven rapids have emerged from the reservoir, as well as 30 miles of returning river into upper Glen Canyon.

The riverine characteristics of the lower Cataract now resemble those of Canyonlands National Park more than the landscape of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. As the river continues to become more parklike in the years to come, there is a growing need for it to be managed as such, ostensibly by Canyonlands Park Service. They are the ones equipped to deal with river recreation and the safety and land practices that come with it.

But the question of how to manage the new Glen Canyon grows more pressing every day. Right now, all the major boat ramps at Lake Powell are closed, and the park service is scurrying to extend new ones down to the level of 3,525 feet. Below that, there is no plan. But the park and its concessionaires appear to be acknowledging the winds of change. In a promotional email, Lake Powell Resorts and Marinas highlighted emerging wonders like Cathedral in the Desert. Billy Shott, the superintendent of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, told the Lake Powell Chronicle if the reservoir went away, well have more people coming here to raft than they have in the Grand Canyon. Itll be a different place, but people will still enjoy it. Its just change.

A new approach to stewardship could also be a generational opportunity for the tribes who call Glen Canyon home. The Navajo, Hopi, Ute, Southern Paiute, Zuni and Puebloan tribes all have deep connections to Glen Canyon. When the canyon was flooded, hundreds of tribal members were displaced their homes, farms and sacred sites drowned. The late Charley Bulletts, a member of the Southern Paiute Consortium, spoke about this loss in a 2018 National Geographic documentary. To have this place backed up with water was sad because you couldnt go back there, you couldnt show your kids your history. All you can show them is the most powerful element in the world and thats the water that was built up and covering our ancestors.

As more ancestral lands emerge from the reservoir, there may be an opportunity for cooperative tribal management. There could be recreational economic opportunities for guiding, like the Hualapai tribe does in the Grand Canyon, or the Navajo Nation does in Antelope Canyon.

With a strategic approach, the transition from a reservoir economy based on motorized watercraft to a parklike economy based on hiking, biking and rafting could have lasting economic benefits. As seen in 2016, tourism revenue from Canyonlands and Arches has the ability to surpass that of Powell. According to the park service, much of Glens new growth in visitation is already land-based. The town of Page, which has historically relied on reservoir tourism, has already been impacted by dropping water. Its mayor, Bill Diak, told a Gizmodo reporter in November 2021 that even if it is harmful to my community by losing an opportunity that we presently have, sometimes that opens a new opportunity, and we always need to be looking in that direction.

The bureaus emergency drought response plans are set to be finalized by the end of April. But if you were to read through the plans yourself, you would find that the term climate change isnt mentioned once in the entire document. What the plan does acknowledge, on line 453, is that if dry conditions persist or worsen, available storage volumes for potential adjustments or releases may be insufficient to protect the Target Elevation at Lake Powell. As such, Drought Response Operations may be ineffective and therefore futile.

Barring any biblical changes to the rivers hydrology, every climate study suggests dry conditions will likely persist and worsen, meaning this plan is already poised to fail. A white paper by the Future of the Colorado Project takes stock of the predicament, stating, A gradual and incremental approach to adaptation, however, is unlikely to meet the challenges of the future. If the Millennium Drought, which has now persisted for more than two decades, has become the new normal, or if the progressive decline of runoff resulting from climate change becomes even more apparent, major structural changes to water management in the basin will be urgently required.

Long story long, were running out of time to make the choice ourselves and face a withered version of Lake Powell that could generate no hydropower, fluctuate erratically every season, offer few reservoir recreation opportunities, limit flows into Grand Canyon and exacerbate drought conditions. The drought response plan outlined by the Bureau of Reclamation wont be enough to elude this outcome, whether it happens in one year or five.

Even if it seems like a long shot now, a scenario where Lake Powell was phased out and a unified Upper and Lower Basin plan determined to store what water is left in Lake Mead would allow the structure of the dam to remain in place as a backup facility to add system flexibility and mitigate flood risk. The consolidated storage could lose less water to ground seepage in Powell, saving the equivalent of 10% of Nevadas allotment. The recreation economy could resemble that of a national park. When all is said and done, it could be the largest river restoration site in the world.

Considering the alternative, and the reality that some version of this is coming whether we like it or not, why not start planning now? Following the lines of Utah Highway 12 on my way back home to Salt Lake City after my fellowship at Cathedral in the Desert, I thought back to what Billy Shott said so simply: Its just change.

Eric Balken is the executive director of Glen Canyon Institute.

This story appears in the May issue ofDeseret Magazine.Learn more about how to subscribe.

Read the original post:

Drought in the West threatens future of Glen Canyon dam and Lake Powell - Deseret News

Juggernaut: Industrial Recreation Deepens Its Tear Across America’s Wildlands – Mountain Journal

The ruckus attracted national news attention, with observers from afar expressing bewilderment that grown adults would engage in a clash of culture over differences in how various kinds of funhogs like to play. It was, in a way, a foreshadowing of turf battles to come.

Back then, Hedden observed, The partners share information and work together to assure that individual decisions make collective sense for the land and the community.

Now he knows it was wishful thinking. The harmonious concert of both of those objectives has not been achieved, he concedes, and the once-sanguine intent of achieving an outdoor recreation Shangri-la, in tune with nature, has faded. In many ways, recreation tourism has pushed past a point of no return, even as managers try to impose limits or make corrections after the fact. Arches National Park, from April to October, now requires visitors to have a special timed-entry pass. In Zion, motorists are allowed to enter until parking spaces fill up and theres a shuttle service that ferries visitors along Zion Canyon Scenic Drive.

Meanwhile, on nearby BLM lands, the past few decades have been a revealer of hard truths with how outdoor recreation, as with any consumptive industry, has become a constant, relentless drive as numbers swell to access more resourcesin this case land itself. The problem isn't just one use, Hedden says, but all of them combined.

When topics like recreation and conservation are considered, how do the two of them mesh? How does the former enhance or harm prospects for the other? In the ledger sheet of assessing the benefits of an outdoor recreation economy set amidst public lands, unmarred scenery and distinct ecosystems supporting an array of species, how are gains and losses calculated?Hedden, who lived in Castle Valley for 50 years until recently, says its a topic many do not want to discuss but it needs to be front and center.

As one who holds longtime adoration for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the north, he says Moab ought to indeed serve as a case study but one not to emulate.

With the Biden Administrations ambitious 30 X 30 proposal that calls for public lands to be cornerstones for saving biological diversity by protecting still-healthy natural environments so that they are more resilient in the face of climate change, how does outdoor recreation fit in? If the goal is achieving ecological resiliency, i.e. the kind of environments that can better withstand climate effects exacerbated by the impacts of humans how, exactly, is the proliferation of outdoor recreation contributing to meeting the objective?

Half his life after the first flare up between motorize and "human-powered" recreationists, Hedden admits that the optimistic prospect of consensus and collaboration, carried out by government agencies and user stakeholder groups, didnt go quite as plannedfor Moab and for public lands. Valiant declarations that balance would be achieved between satiating the desires of recreationists to have play areas and, on the other hand, protecting sensitive wildlife and sublime scenery, have failed to deliver. What's already been lost is difficult to measure. The premise has always been that having more recreationists using more public land and enjoying more access, benefits the cause of biodiversity, but does it?

This is a question being asked in many places across the American West where wildlife, because of various kinds of human population pressure, often is being pressed to exist on thinner margins of habitat and human tolerance. But nowhere, arguably, does it have more implications than in Greater Yellowstone, which still has all of its original native large mammal speciesmany that are expected to have a difficult time persisting as it is with the effects of climate change alone.

Does protecting wildlife matter or is it merely an acceptable collateral casualty of outdoor recreation's success?

Separately, a recent peer-reviewed article in the science journalBio Oneexamining the impacts of recreation pressure on sensitive desert bighorn sheep is a single telling reference point yet it can be extrapolated to other species. Human activity in wildlands can influence wildlife populations by decreasing or degrading habitat, decreasing survival, or through displacement, authors of the study wrote. For bighorn sheep, some human activities are detrimental and may result in physiological stress, altered activity budgets, or habitat abandonment. From 1979 to 2000, human recreation increased over 300 percent in areas occupied by desert bighorn sheep in south-eastern Utah. Concurrently, the population of desert bighorn sheep occupying the Potash Bighorn Sheep Management Unit of south-eastern Utah was in steep decline.

Yes, bighorn numbers have fallen eveninside a special protected areathat was designated to buffer them from impacts. As for Hedden, who has impeccable credentials as a big picture thinker when it comes to conservation, the faith he placed in the promise of consensus and collaboration has been dashed. Why? Because consensus and collaboration more often than not focuses on prioritizing human desires, wants and ambitions which have already won-out across most of the Lower 48. Wildlands are the last refuge and the outdoor recreation industry, like the 19th century promotors of Manifest Destiny, see "unexploited" places as a frontier to hurriedly conquest.

The Moab area is overridden with car traffic and people, including local residents, [Hedden] says, who tear up and down the high desert hills and canyons in off-road vehicles, or mountain bike all over, zoom around on the river in motorboats and jet skis. Surrounding towns dont want to become another Moab, he says, yet when he asks, Is there one activity you are willing to forbid, so that wont happen? they look at me blankly. They dont even comprehend what Im asking them. Theyre like, Hey, this is a free country, people can do what they want. And I say, Yes, thats whats happening in Moab. Even the animals cant find refuge. Hunters are going into the back country with four-wheelers and shooting deer,' he says. Theres no back of beyondanymore because we have so many ways of getting there.

The BLM is a stalwart promotor of multiple use managementa concept promulgated in a far less ecologically-minded time and when there were far less people. Outdoor recreation is approached with the multiple use mindset that if land isnt being used by humans, then it is being wasted. The US Forest Service has its own version of multiple use.

The mythical back of beyond, a phrase Hedden applied to formerly remote and ever rarer wildlands, is, every day, winnowing because there are so many people and better machines that make getting there easier. One of the latest inventions, e-bikes, which represent a kind of hybrid between mountain biking and motor craft, are being adopted by growing numbers of older, less physically-hardy recreationists.

E-bike advocates and their manufacturers have pressed for more access to the backcountry and pushed hard for public land agencies to allow them to use mountain bike and motorized trails. If they prevail, it is likely to result in more parts of the backcountry coming to closely resemble more heavily impacted areas of frontcounty, Hedden and others believe.

Today, there are tourism/recreation promotors in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, in places like Big Sky and Bozeman, Montana, Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Teton Valley, Idaho who blithely see nothing wrong with going angling for a little Moab-style outdoor recreation. Offices of Outdoor Recreation in those three states are bullish on the prospect and even with large crowds, government and non-government tourism officials continue to use tax monies to promote the region.

Seldom acknowledged by those who tout Moab is that Greater Yellowstone still has a caliber of large mammalian wildlife diversity Moab never had and never will. Scientists warn that it doesnt take the intense levels of recreation like that occurring in Moab to have a serious impact on wildlife in Greater Yellowstone.

Just as outdoor recreation itself is not a monolith, New West outdoor recreation economies are multi-dimensional. They are intricately interwoven with development interests. In mountain regions up and down the Rockies, there is no separation between the engines of the outdoor recreation industry, the tourism industry, the real estate/construction industry, and the hospitality industry. Like four legs holding up a stool, they are continuously re-enforcing in the cumulative effects they bring to the mosaic of public and private land. And far from ephemeral, many of them are permanent.

A poignant statistic to consider is that between 1904, when 13,727 annual visits were made to Yellowstone and today, some 195,958,486 million visits have been notched in Americas oldest national park through 2021. That total number took 117 years to reach, but more than half of it was accumulated just since 1990.Soaring visitation to national parks creates ripples in adjacent public lands and communities.

Today, front-country campsites and parking lots at trailheads are overflowing in many of Greater Yellowstones national forests located within an hours drive of Bozeman and Jackson Hole. Levels of river traffic recreationists that take many forms have never been higher. Like the tension in Moab between motorized recreationists and non, there's animosity between fishing outfitters and non-commercial anglers on the Upper Madison River, for example, about use levels.

On the minds of many who have watched the region change, the question is not only how much more crowded can places become, but should the objective of public land managers be to promote expanded use of areas that bureaucrats classify as underutilizeduntilthey become crowded? Wilderness and wilderness-caliber lands are forever being eyed for more use under the false claim that they "lock people out." But viewed another way, they are among the only places left where multiple use extraction and recreation have not invaded and that's why wildlife still benefits from secure habitat.

Ryan Zinke, during his recent short tenure as Interior Secretary, standing at the front gate of Yellowstone. Zinke believes limiting visitor numbers to Yellowstone is anathema. Instead, he wants to continue further turbo-charging recreation tourism by expanding the size of facilities, building more trails and infrastructure to accommodate more people not only in parks but on all public lands. Today, Zinke's desire to intensively enlarge the footprint of outdoor recreation is shared by the Biden Administration, members of the outdoor recreation industry he was previously at odds with and even conservation organizations. Photo courtesy NPS

Zinke asserts the answer to crowding and resource impacts is not regulating visitor numbers because, for him, it runs counter to the American way of promoting freedom and liberty on public lands that seem boundless. Repeating the philosophy he advanced while at Interior (which oversees the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service refuges), Zinke says the answer is this: expanding facilities to handle more people, growing the network of recreation trails across public lands, building more points of access including trailheads and parking lots, and, basically, approaching crowding as an engineering challenge.

Finding ways to pack in more users, his message suggests, is better than talking aboutlimits, which to himand he provides no evidence in claiming this is part of a plot advanced by radicals to stop the public from enjoying their lands. Zinke doesnt believe controlling the volume of recreation is necessary to protect wildlife, the visitor experience or the caliber of solitude Montanans and other Westerners for generations have savored.

While acknowledging that long lines, no parking and crowded trails have become the norm in parks and other public lands, he casts aspersions at any mention of rationing resources. Instead of shutting down public access under the guise of protecting resources, we must continue strategic investments in park infrastructure, he says.

Zinke the politician doesnt say what kind of infrastructure is necessary to sustain current annual overflowing visitation to Yellowstonenor when it tops five million, or six, seven, or eight million.He doesnt reference what the cumulative impact will be of expanded development in gateway towns, including football stadium-sized parking lots that would be needed to accommodate motorists who park their cars outside the park and then jump on public transportation. He doesnt say what the larger human footprint will mean for, say, wildlife migration corridors that allow animals to move in and out of the park around Gardiner, Montana. He doesnt clarify how expanded infrastructure will yield better environmental protection, or how more recreationists using rivers, front- and backcountry will yield better conservation, or explain how growing the recreation economy will benefit wildlife at a time when species are facing more landscape fragmentation onprivateland, more recreation pressure onpublicland, and effects from climate change.

Zinke probably would disagree with Heddens assessment that landing a few more great white sharks of industrial strength tourism is a bad thing.Indecipherable in his rhetoric is any clearly-defined notion of what the amorphous buzzwords of sustainability or "balance" or "listening to stakeholders" means within the context of preserving Greater Yellowstones free-ranging wildlife and nature of place. If anything, he appears to subscribe to the paradox that better conservation outcomes will come from more intense human use.

To further that end, he is an advocate for securing a lot more federal funding to expand construction of tourism/recreation infrastructureand thats incredibly worrisome to wildlife scientists. Its parallel to what Zinke did at Interior when he pushed to open more of the West to oil and gas development and mining on public land, enabling managers with the BLM to invoke categorical exclusions allowing their decisions to be exempt from the public scrutinizing cumulative environmental effects. In a speech he delivered before the National Petroleum Council in 2017, Zinke as Interior Secretary claimed 30 percent of the 70,000 employees who worked at Interiorand who did not agree with himwere not loyal to the flag.

Regarding outdoor recreation and dismissing claims that large numbers of users can lead to places being loved to death, Zinke wrote in the Bozeman newspaper in April 2022, Going forward, policymakers in D.C. must protect our parks as well as our public access in order to ensure the experience that future generations deserve. But that can only happen with proper management rather than neglect or radical policies that rely on limiting public access.

Zinke then referenced the mantle of Theodore Roosevelt, the same as he did at Interior when he promoted policies that undermined the conservation ethos Roosevelt had championed as president. As your congressman, I have and always will subscribe to Roosevelts American Conservation Ethic, Zinke wrote. Anything less is just wishful thinking and puts at risk Montanas special wild places, watersheds, and our way of life.

During his abbreviated tenure heading the Trump Administrations Interior Department, Zinke and environmentalists, including facets of the human-powered outdoor recreation industry, often clashed over his push for expanding traditional resource extraction on public lands into areas where people play. Yet pertaining to the goal of markedly expanding outdoor recreation access and opportunity, the aspirations of Zinke and his former environmental foes now, at least rhetorically, as we shall see, are in alignment.

What are the impacts to species dwelling in public lands? In hundreds of press releases that have been pored over, issued by a wide array of conservation and recreation organizations, reflection on that question is almost never mentioned. More on that in the next part of this series.

Outdoor recreation is, by any measuring stick, an unprecedented juggernaut sliding across the public landscape. Economic numbers the industry puts up are huge. It is bigger than the mining industry and auto industry.Most resource extraction industries adhere to a business model of continuous expansion until targeted monetizable resources are exhausted. In this case, the monetizable resources are not only lands but peopleas consumers of stuff.

The fortunes of the outdoor recreation industry are not tied just to public land venues where users of commercial products and services can play, but there is also a parallel supportive infrastructure in public land gateway communities.Part of the juggernautthat associated gridbrings its own set of positive and negative impacts and the effects often, as Hedden noted in Moab, become physically and politically nearly unstoppable or fixable. More people, per the Zinke model, begets more demands for expanded infrastructure and more economic dependence. Lost in the frenzied cycle is any serious reflection on consequences for wildlife and the spirit of a natural place.

Waterways, for example, once regarded as sacred, are treated as working rivers" but instead of floating logs they have flotillas of people. In the manic ramp-up of outdoor recreation economies, the hunger for more can take on the look and manic feel of Old West boomtowns. And here is perhaps the profoundest irony that strikes at the heart of the recreation equals conservation trope: things like environmental laws, top shelf protected land statuses, voices of caution and even wildlife are treated as nuisancesimpediments to more prosperity.

Indeed, recently in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, some members and supporters of old-guard conservation organizations who have become vocal promotors of outdoor recreation have characterized wildlife conservationists in print as being extremists and radicals.

Again, the economic might of outdoor recreation is undeniable, just as the cutting of forests has been for logging towns and the extraction of coal for places like Gillette, Wyoming, the coal-fired power generating town of Coltsrip, Montana and countless communities in Appalachia.

For years, conservation organizations who battled those industries touted outdoor recreation as a way to diversify economies so that they werent so dependent on extraction. But today, one could argue that recreation economies (which use public lands as playgrounds and draws for attracting more business) have created their own kind of dependence.

Politicians, gear and clothing manufacturers, outdoor retailers, state tourism offices, outfitters, guides, lobbyists in Congress and conservation organizations cite the stats. Generating in 2020 almost $700 billion annually in consumer spending, outdoor recreation is the foundation for 4.3 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Boulder, Colorado-based Outdoor Industry Association. The latter noted that the 2020 figures are actually low because they were calculated in a year of Covid-related restrictions. See the graphic below that it circulated.

Outdoor recreation accounts for over two percent of Americas gross domestic product. What puts it in a separate category, promotors say, is that this economic engine is fueled by citizens spending money while engaged in leisure activities they enjoy, which make them healthier, enables them to commune with nature and use public lands that belong to them.

The Outdoor Industry Association asserts that a strong link between recreation and conservation and it holds greatest traction in noting that recreationists generally do not like getting out into forested clearcuts and boating on streams sullied by mining tailings. The outdoor recreation economy depends on abundant, safe, and welcoming public lands and waters, the Outdoor Industry Association notes. The health of individuals, communities, and our economy is tied to opportunities for everyone to experience the benefits of parks, trails, and open spaces.

Outdoor recreation also has given even conservative red states a lucrative stepping stone for pivoting away from resource extraction and the whiplash of boom and bust economic cycles.

Recreation tourism fills motel rooms and makes cash registers ring in restaurants, helps outfitters and guides send their kids to college, enables outdoor retail gear shops to thrive, and generates tax dollars.

Trails have been shown to enhance property values in nearby neighborhoods. People who commute to work on bicycles, rather than cars, aren't generating carbon emissions or contributing to auto traffic and smog. No one disputes these impressive attributes.

One of the most influential entiies in identifying and touting the New West narrativethe shift from traditional resource extraction to outdoor recreationhas been Bozeman, Montana-based Headwaters Economics. A Headwaters analysis that attracted attention in Congress revealed that people who live in communities situated next to inspiring protected public lands have higher per capita incomes.

Gianforte told me how Bozemans proximity to public lands with excellent outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing opportunities was a major catalyst in luring talented people to move to Montana and work for his company. Ironically, the appeal of the very public lands that have helped turn Bozeman into the one of the fastest-growing micropolitan cities in America have created growth issues that now threaten the health of wildlife that drew them there.

.

In particular, many rural non-metro Western counties have better economic performance if they have protected lands such as national parks, federal wilderness in national forests and BLM lands, national conservation areas (overseen by the BLM), national monuments (overseen by the BLM), and national wildlife refuges administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service), Headwaters noted.

What Headwaters did not precisely define, however, was what protected public lands means. Protected can have a lot of different connotations. Protected, as in not developed like private lands? Protected, as in not allowing major hardrock mines and logging yet open for recreation? Or protected, as in lands that exist in such condition to support healthy and stable populations of wildlife?

There is no landscape in the world where large wild mammal populations, of the kind currently present in Greater Yellowstone, have not suffered amid industrial strength activities, be it extracting commodity raw materials from the earth or recreation with lots of people coursing through them. More on that in the next part of this series.

Headwaters research presciently anticipated the rising popularity of New West outdoor-lifestyle-oriented mountain towns, and it hailed and correctly ascertained the phenomenon of how such towns, amid Covid, could become for attracting New Economy entrepreneurs who can live anywhereincluding remote placesand do business around the world. That trend is now de rigueur, igniting a new boom of development in places like Bozeman. Alongside it, a crisis of affordable housing and crush of recreationists on public lands and rivers . More on that later, too.

In poll after poll assessing public opinion, Westerners have expressed their love for public lands and such support has forced politicians like Ryan Zinke to swear he will not join fellow Republicans who have called for turning over federal lands to states or selling off tracts to the highest private bidders. Politicians keenly understand the role of public lands in propelling local economies.

The social value of public lands is only growing. The US Fish and Wildlife Service every five years releases its benchmark National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The good news is that, overall, the interest Americans have with interacting with nature is surging, in all parts of the landscape. In 2016, more than 103 million Americansa staggering 40 percent of the U.S. population 16 years and olderparticipated in some form of fishing, hunting, or other wildlife- associated recreation such as bird- watching or outdoor photography, the report states. And in doing so, we spent an estimated $156.9 billion on equipment, travel, licenses, and fees. These expenditures represent almost 1 percent of the nations Gross Domestic Product creating and supporting thousands of jobs and communities across the nation.

The survey refers to this demographic as wildlife recreationists and it conceptualizes it in two waysconsumptive, as in hunting and fishing which involves killing individual animals, andnon-consumptive, which involves observing wildlife and/or heading to areas because the presence of wildlife makes it more enjoyable to be there.

The report confirms a continued trend that has been noticed for decades: the number of hunters overall continues to decline, and older hunters are not being replaced in sufficient numbers by young people to change the downward curve. Meanwhile, however, the number of non-consumptive wildlife watchers is skyrocketing and represents an economic powerhouse in ascendence. This will also be explored in series parts ahead but the point is that places with wildlife are things Americans want to have and places where they want to go.

Public lands and waters benefit society in other profound ways. Besides being good for business, public lands and having ample, ready access to nature is good prescriptive medicine for people.Richard Louv in his groundbreaking book, Last Child in the Woods, wrote about nature-deficit disorder in children and how modern generations of us, most of whom dwell in urban areas, were becoming disconnected from the sensual stimuli that exists potently in the non-human-dominated world. In fact, studies indicate that people who spend more time engaging nature in peaceful, quiet, slow ways are more empathetic, altruistic and generous.

Both the Louv and Williams books are highly recommended. Williams started her writing career with High Country News in the West and is married to Jamie Williams, president of The Wilderness Society, headquartered in Washington D.C. The Nature Fix is a masterful prescription for how each of us can use Nature to calm down, engage in mindfulness, escape the rat race and heal trauma. What Williams really focuses on, however, is the one-way relationship we humans have with the outdoors. Its about whatwe receivefrom nature rather than exploring in detail the far more complicated reciprocal relationship that involves us giving back or limiting what we can do to minimize our individual and larger societal negative impacts on nature.

Maybe the best part of outdoor recreation is that it forges memories that last across generations, imbuing positive feelings that hold families and friendships together. The assertion is that people are more willing to protect what they love. From a human-benefit perspective, it's hard to argue that recreation has any significant downsides.

The Nature Fix has been prominently promoted by conservation organizations,the outdoor recreation industry and business community as providing justification for expanding recreational opportunities in cities and suburbs and expanding access on public lands across the West. Often, representatives of those groups have portrayed Williams message as a license to run wild, meaning that the more were out in the bushes, no matter what were doing, no matter what the setting, the better. Specifically, the more outdoor recreation, the better we feel and if it makes us feel better it must also, therefore, be good for the environment. But is it true? Keep reading after the photos below.

It's true: Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks are crowded every summer. It's great that they are popular; it shows that people care. But record crowds in both parks are now overwhelming resources along the front country. Here, bear watchers mass along a highway in Grand Teton hoping to catch a glimpse of famous Jackson Hole grizzly 399 and her cubs in September 2020. Photo Shuttersock 1827517454

Crushing visitation has also fueled an expanding human footprint outside the park, such as in Gardiner, Montana, northern gateway to Yellowstone, pictured here. More development at the edge of Yellowstone further constricts the ability of wildlife to move in and out of the park. And sold-out campgrounds and hotels in the park mean more people are turning to Forest Service campgrounds and that means more recreation pressure. Photo courtesy Jacob W. Frank/NPS

How much human pressure can the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem take? That is the question. And it's timely as politicians, the outdoor recreation industry and some conversation groups are pushing for bills in Congress that would result in a huge expansion of infrastructure to provide more access and put more users into public lands. Photo of tourists too close to a Yellowstone lk courtesy Neal Herbert/NPS

In Yellowstone in 2021, the park notched a record 4.86 million visits and that didn't even include international bus tour traffic which has not been present during Covid. The time of intense visitation has expanded well beyond the Memorial Day to Labor Day stretch in both Yellowstone and Jackson Hole. Photo courtesy Jacob W. Frank/NPS

Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly who inherited a visitation problem when he arrived in 2017 says "we are not going to develop our way out of the problem." Photo of traffic at Norris Junction in Yellowstone. Photo courtesy Jacob W. Frank/NPS

Grand Teton, which recorded a whopping 3.8 million visits in 2021, also has the busiest commercial airport in the state inside its borders. Huge numbers of visitors have brought an inundation of people to campgrounds and trails on Bridger-Teton National Forest. What is the answer? Photo courtesy J. Bonney/NPS

The outdoor recreation industry is now so gigantic that many landscape conservationists worry it is too big to be denied when trying to influence politicians and public land managers. And it is now primed to expand and roar like no other time in US history. Are Greater Yellowstone and the public land West ready?

A visible entity that represents a bridge between the recreation and environmental communities is an organization called the Outdoor Alliance. It stands in contrast to a different kind of loose-knit alliance that has long existed, for example, between hunting and fishing organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, the National Rifle Association, individual members who are executives in the resource extraction industry and companies like Bass Pro Shops, gun and ammo manufacturers, and makers of off-road vehicles.

The Outdoor Alliance says our mission is to unite the voices of outdoor enthusiasts to protect the human-powered outdoor recreation experience and conserve Americas public lands.Michael V. Finley, recently retired chairman of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, is a lifelong outdoorsperson who grew up in his state hunting, fishing and hikingactivities that now as a septuagenarian he still enjoys.

Finley had a distinguished career with the National Park Service. Prestigiously, he was superintendent [the top manager] at Yellowstone, Yosemite and Everglades national parks. At Yosemite, he pushed for public transportation to address overcrowding in picturesque Yosemite Valley; in Everglades, he worked with President George H. W. Bush in pushing back against the powerful sugar cane industry that brought pollution and hydrological destruction to the Everglades ecosystem; and, in Yellowstone, he presided when his friend, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, ordered the reintroduction of wolves and helped him, along with President Bill Clinton, stop the controversial New World Mine from being built on Yellowstones doorstep.

Finley, who is aMountain Journalboard member, has fished on rivers crowded with anglers, hunted in woods where large numbers of hunters with ready access have clashed and he has watched corners of the West become overrun especially in the social media age. He says the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem urgent needs special treatment and worries that blind promotion of outdoor recreation, as its been done in other regions, is a bad idea and has more severe consequences given what is at stake.

After his career with the Park Service ended, and he was president of the Turner Foundation, Finley recommended that Ted Turner and his grown children trustees provide seed money to help launch the Outdoor Alliance. He said the impetus wasnt merely that the outdoor industry possessed economic standing, but that companies which capitalize on the environment ought to be willing to safeguard it. Its part of their ethical and moral duty, he says.

The Outdoor Alliance has made a splash in its couple of decades of existence. Its members applauded when organizers of the mega Outdoor Retailer show initially pulled out of Salt Lake City in protest of state politicians moving to weaken environmental laws, oppose creation of national monuments and deny the science of human-caused climate change that is going to decimate the ski industry and create water challenges.

World-class climber Peter Metcalf, the founder and former CEO of Black Diamond, sits on the board of the Outdoor Alliance and he prestigiously served as Salt Lake City Branch director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He told me that those who profit from destroying the environment need to be held accountable and the pursuit of bottom line profit should not come at the expense of future generations.

Like Finley, he, too, believes outdoor recreation industry owes Mother Nature a debt of gratitude. Indeed, the Outdoor Alliance has become known as the green arm of the outdoor recreation industry, standing shoulder to shoulder with companies like Patagonia that called out Zinke and the Trump Administration for their unprecedented attempts to weaken environmental laws and shrink back national monuments.

Often, press conferences are held and high fives exchanged whenever a new bill passes through Congress that is considered pro-conservation, especially bi-partisan packages so rare in these polemical partisan times. Months after he proposed zeroing out appropriations for the half century old Land and Water Conservation Fund, that enabled federal and state agencies to acquire important private land for parks, wildlife habitat and urban sports fields, President Trump reversed course.

In 2020, Trump, along with bi-partisan support in Congress, signed into law the Great Outdoors American Act, that restored the Land and Water Conservation Funds annual appropriation of $900 million annually that decades of earlier Congresses had raided for other things. Essential to note is that the Great America Outdoors Act won in part based on strong support from the outdoor recreation and tourism industries because huge amounts of money are going to be spent expanding and repairing infrastructure to facilitate more recreation visitation. Young recreation activists claimed the bills passage was one of the most momentous conservation achievements in history, but was it,really?

Billions of dollars are going to be poured into promoting more outdoor recreation on public lands in the years ahead. What does it portend for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem?

Following Trump and in his first year,President Biden, along with bi-partisan support in Congress, brought into law the Conserving and Restoring America The Beautiful Act. It has helped throttle a feverish, unprecedented land-rush for more recreational access, backed strongly by product manufacturers because they know its a catalyst for selling more product and bolstering profits. Again, part of it is linked to 30 X 30 that seeks to safeguard 30 percent of healthy public lands that remain.

New legislative priorities, as identified by the Outdoor Industry Association and The Outdoor Alliance are: expanding recreation infrastructure and access; and supporting bills that would eliminate red tape so that public land managers can more quickly approve more recreation infrastructure without getting tied up in environmental analysis. At the same time, ironically, they say they are striving to protect core conservation laws and reverse regulatory rollbacks.

Wildlife scientists deeply concerned about the impacts of recreation on wildlife have a different take. They say that conservation organizations who have become allies with the industry and promoted access have set the stage for disaster.

On the one hand, scientists say, members of the outdoor recreation industry have vowed to insure NEPA is upheld and, on the other, when it comes to greenlighting more outdoor recreation infrastructure, they want permit approvals for trails and more access expedited or to allow individual national forest and BLM managers to avoid rigorous review via maneuverings known as categorical exclusions. (Those same managers were given categorical exclusions by the Trump Administration to approve lots of small timber sales so they could skirt NEPA compliance and issuing of oil and gas permits on BLM land).

During the heated timber wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, environmentalists often lambasted politicians and the Forest Service for setting timber harvest targets that were unsustainable and caused destruction, but promoted in the name of job creation. But what are the standards of sustainability when applied to outdoor recreation and it impacts?

After President Biden came into office, he restored fuller protection for Bears Ears in southern Utah. It was a national monument created by President Obama that had been dramatically reduced in size by President Trump, in deference to resource extraction interests.

In the wake of Bidens action, Cramer of the Outdoor Alliance wrote: Outdoor Alliance is thrilled to join President Biden as he signs the proclamation to protect Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. Along with being profoundly important to Indigenous communities since time immemorial, these landscapes are known for their world-class climbing, as well as paddling, hiking, mountain biking, and camping. The Presidents actions today honor the voices of Indigenous communities as well as Americans across the country who want to see Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante permanently protected. And they contribute toward broader conservation goals, including those set out in the Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful plan.

How does recreation jibe with protection of sacred sites? This is an area of tremendous debate. Bears Ears is venerated by the Navajo, among others, as an active holy place where people have gone for ceremony over millennia. It is rich in archaeological evidence, and, in the case of so many instances over the years, expanded recreation into locations that are considered important for indigenous spiritual retreat and holding archeological touchstones, more human recreation incursion is not always good for the protecting the intrinsic values. At Devils Tower in Wyoming, indigenous activists have clashed with climbers, and, in St. Paul, Minnesota, Indian Mounds State Park (which has been an indigenous burial grounds) were managed as an outdoor recreation area.

Built into it were tennis courts, a ball field, paved recreation trails, playground, and barbecue grills. It isnt the only ancient cemetery that was converted into a recreation play area. A new sign put up at the "park" in St. Paul reads.This is a burial place, and our ancestors are still here. You are in a cemetery. It is a sacred burial ground that has been here for thousands of years.

With regard to the Conserving and Restoring America The Beautiful Act, and the Recreation Not Red Tape Act and 30 X 30 and the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act, an issue again that is almost never mentioned is whats beingconserved? Downsides or unintended consequences on wildlifeare evaded, except when issues of crowding are raised the answer is, echoing of Zinke, to build bigger parking lots, more trails, more boat ramps, and expand a given places capacity to accommodate more people.

In recent years, conservation and recreation groups have become tenacious advocates for increasing outdoor recreation capacity. And theyve praised the opening of Offices of Outdoor Recreation in 13 states, including Montana, Wyoming, Utah and most states in the West. In 2016, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat, created the Montana Office of Outdoor Recreation and Rachel VandeVoort was hired to head it up.

Earlier in her career VandeVoort, a native of Whitefish, worked as a regional sales manager in the ski industry, marketing director for a river raft company, as a representative for Kalispell, Montana-based firearms maker Kimber, and she called herself an enthusiastic booster of outdoor recreation in all its forms.She is pictured along with Donald Trump Jr.

The first director of Montana's Office of Outdoor Recreation Rachel VandeVoort. Previously, she was a representative for the Kalispell, Montana-based gun maker Kimber. She is pictured here with Donald Trump Jr. Photo screenshot from Facebook

VandeVoort was tireless in making dozens of glowing presentations about the economic contributions of outdoor recreation. She appeared, for example, at a 2018 conference hosted by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition on outdoor recreation at Montana State University in Bozeman.

Marne Hayes, a resident of Big Sky who is director of Business for Montanas Outdoors wroterecently in support of maintaining the Montana Office of Outdoor Recreation that outdoor recreation accounts for 5.4 percent of employment in Montana,over five percent of Montanas Gross Domestic Product and provides $2.2 billion in wages and salaries. Outdoor recreation brings in more to the state than pharmaceuticals and motor vehicles, she wrote and noted that recreations Gross Domestic Product percentage is higher than in any other state.

The uncertainty of a pandemic has shown us in no uncertain terms that our outdoor recreation economy is nimble and resilient, and a steady contributor to economic recovery in a variety of forms, Hayes wrote. With 33.8 million acres of public lands, nearly 170,000 miles of rivers, more than 3,200 lakes and reservoirs, and endless miles of forested trails, Montanas outdoor assets provide a source for recreation, sustain businesses, and improve health, whether community, business, mental, or physical.

Read this article:

Juggernaut: Industrial Recreation Deepens Its Tear Across America's Wildlands - Mountain Journal

A class perspective on the contretemps between the Guyanese and Trinidadian business communities – Stabroek News

Dear Editor,

To understand the ongoing brutal contretemps between representatives of the Guyanese and Trinidadian business community we need to do so from a class perspective.

A significant component of the Guyanese capitalist class of the pre-independence era had their genesis in older family businesses who were dominant in the mercantile, timber, saw-milling and mining enterprises as well as the agricultural and services sectors.

This component was represented by the Muneshwers, the Sankars, the Raymans, the Baichandeens, the Deygoos/Boyers, the Thanis and the Kirpalanis, the Tangs, Kwang Hing and Yong Hing, and the Majeeds, among others. They had been competing with, but eventually replaced the Portuguese businessmen and others including, JP Santos, the Willemses, the de Caireses, the Davsons, the Abdelnours,and the Eliases, save for the DAguiars in the brewery and rum industries, the Bettencourts in hand bag-making, the Fernandes, in shipping and land transportation and the Meckdecis in mining and land transportation. They were considered the Old Guard of the pre-independence business era.

Later came a number of Indian nationals including the Mohans, the Bhojwanis, and many others. By that time a new generation of Guyanese businessmen had sprung up, they were heirs of older businesses belonging to the Kissoons, the Seepersaud-Marajs, the Alim-Shahs, the Sankars, the Persauds, the Jaikarrans, the Nagar Sawh, the Jaigobins, the Mazaharallys, the Boyer/Deygoos, the Beepats, the Puris, the Gafoors, and Lysons whose rise to prominence came in the early post-independence era.

Some in this new wave of Guyanas capitalist class took to the manufacturing sector, while others entered into the services sector and wholesale and retail business. But many were birthed when the PPP Government of 1957 -1964 established the first industrial estate at Ruimveldt. This crop of post-independence entrepreneurs ruled the roost for a number of decades.

In pre-independent Guyana, the capitalist class was dominated by foreigners including the Booker Group, WM Forgarty, Sandbach-Parker and Wieting and Richter among others.

They co-existed with the nascent local petit bourgeois and entrepreneurial class beginning from the early 1940s to the mid-1960s when they were severely routed by the 1962-1964 disturbances. Many, especially the Portuguese business elite fled the country. From the early 1970s to mid-1980s, rigged elections, the emergence of a dictatorship who pursued a policy of ownership and control of the commanding heights of the economy squeezed many out of business.

The growth and development of market forces in Guyana was stymied during the 1970s and early 1980s as a result of the mismanagement of the economy, a heavy debt burden, as well as the marginalization and near destruction of the business community.

Compounding what eventually became an economic crisis, was the severe shortage of foreign exchange and the concomitant restrictions imposed on imported goods

Under these conditions, many businessmen opted to engage in illicit financial, economic and trade activities claiming it was for the good of the country when in fact it was clearly aimed at blatant profiteering by exploiting the weaknesses of a tottering economy and a corrupt and degenerate political apparatus.

The mid-1980s saw a marked freeing up of market forces when the once faltering economy received a shot in the arm by the then Hoyte administration.

Through privatization of a number of state entities and properties, Hoyte sought, on the one hand, to incubate another hue of the business class while on the other, attacking what remained of the Portuguese business community labeling them the Putagee mafia.

When Hoytes newly minted businessmen emerged, they opportunistically sought to flaunt their political allegiance unabashedly by establishing Committees for the Re-election of the President (Hoyte) at home and abroad

Thus from the 1990s to 2015 and much later, another genre of Guyanese capitalists had sprung up. Viewed as separate but intersecting components of the Guyanese business class they morphed into a larger body resulting in a tectonic shift in the history and evolution of the business community in Guyana.

Seven years later, with the assumption to office by the freely elected PPP/C government, the new administration declared: A new government will reshape its economic agenda with emphasis on social policy. The PPP/C government will do all in its power to promote local business and the development of an economy in which Guyanese businessmen play a significant role. To expand the base of local businesses while at the same time seeking to attract foreign capital.

The PPP/C government went on to state; It will provide generous tax holidays and other incentives to encourage local and foreign entrepreneurs to invest in the development of resource-based manufacturing industries in all areas.

Having laid down its economic development policy, the capitalist old guard looking to earn some extra money in the new dispensation, seized the opportunity to assert themselves, while the new breed of capitalists wasted no time enriching themselves mightily by leveraging a combination of political and social platforms at their disposal.

Meanwhile, their Trinidadian counterparts, buoyed by cheap energy and powered by a dynamic oil and gas industry, had consolidated their economic power and political influence in the twin-island republic.

They had made significant progress with the support of venture capital in the manufacturing and services sector because of cheap energy.

Exports of goods and services accounted for a significant portion of the twin-islands GDP. The islands private sector was poised to assume an aggressive role within the CARICOM market flooding the internal markets of Jamaica, Barbados and Guyana with Made in Trinidad products and effectively swamping the domestic markets of the Eastern Caribbean countries.

Here in Guyana, the business community was woefully lagging behind with reliance solely on bauxite, gold timber and agricultural exports including rice and sugar. But the Guyanese capitalist class had already lost almost two decades in terms of its growth and development when compared to the rapid development of their counterparts in Trinidad and Tobago.

In the meanwhile, another genre of the Guyanese business class had emerged, their genesis was the middle class, a growing cadre of young professionals and petit bourgeois elements. Many came from rich and super rich families in the mining and farming communities including the rice and sugar industries. I call them the Young Upstarts. Afflicted by a grow up at all costs mentality, they emerged at a time when oil and gas was discovered in Guyana.

It was this group that aggressively challenged their Trinidadian counterparts who they viewed as a threat to their share of the pie as exemplified in Guyanas oil and gas industry.

These Upstarts are part of modern capitalism who spend large portions of their lives on-line and in an era of innovation and opportunity that gives them space allowing them to morph into a physical force impacting policy formulation at the level of cabinet and government as a whole.

At the centre of this maelstrom is this group of young, wealthy and charismatic business executives who have declared themselves capable of positioning their companies to take advantage of an economy that is rapidly developing. They have demonstrated extraordinary levels of boldness and ambition and a willingness to bet big as reflected in the US$300M Vreed-en-Hoop Shore Base Facility.

As Guyanas economy continues to move at breathtaking speed, the fight for space in Guyanas oil and gas industry between the Guyanese and Trinidadian business class reached new heights with the passage of the Local Content legislation and when spokespersons on behalf of government made statements backing the upstarts in their fiery resentment and quest to restrict the aggressive inroads by the Trinidadian business class in Guyanas oil and gas services sector.

The class struggle has already manifested itself at CARICOM Heads of Government meetings, it will undoubtedly, reach the confines of the CCJ.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

See the rest here:

A class perspective on the contretemps between the Guyanese and Trinidadian business communities - Stabroek News

Equilibrium/Sustainability Ukraine’s invasion leaves Siberia exposed to wildfire – The Hill

AP Photo/Anna Ogorodnik

Siberias seasonal wildfires burned more than 91,000 acres last week even as local lakes remained frozen, creating smoke plumes so large they turned skies pink in the Western U.S., according to The Washington Post.

Its an alarming sign for Russia, which usually relies on the countrys ground troops and aerial transport to support its forestland firefighters, the Post reported. And the past few years in Siberia have seen raging blazes across the regions vast reaches of peatland and taiga forests.

But while this year is likely to be a fiery one for Siberia, those extra resources probably wont be available, according to the Post.

Theres no question that Ukraine has been a huge drain on the ground resources for Russia, Col. Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Post.

They moved a lot of troops outside of the country. Any troops that are going back are pretty beat-up, Cancian said, adding that these fires are going to be harder to fight.

Welcome to Equilibrium, a newsletter that tracks the growing global battle over the future of sustainability. Were Saul Elbein and Sharon Udasin.Send us tips and feedback. A friend forward this newsletter to you? Subscribe here.

Today well look at how Russias decision to cut gas supplies to two NATO members has E.U. leaders crying blackmail. Then well look at a failed attempt by shareholders to get big banks to move off new fossil fuel financing.

Polish officials accused Russia of seeking to foster divisions among Western allies following Moscows decision to shut off gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria on Wednesday, the BBC reported.

Politicians in Warsaw and Sofia went so far as to describe Moscows move as blackmail, while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the era of Russian fossil fuel in Europe is coming to an end, according to the BBC.

Unjustified and unacceptable: Von der Leyen likewise referred to the shutdown as yet another attempt by Russia to use gas an instrument of blackmail, stressing in a statement that this is unjustified and unacceptable.

She vowed that the EU would continue to work with international partners to identify alternative sources of natural gas, adding that a coordinated E.U. response was in the works, as our colleague Caroline Vakil reported for The Hill.

What happened? Russia halted supplies of gas to Poland and Bulgaria on Wednesday, while threatening to do the same other countries, The Associated Press reported.

State-controlled energy giant Gazprom declared that it was shutting off these supplies because those countries refused to pay for gas in rubles, as President Vladimir Putin had demanded, according to the AP.

Blackmail vs. payment dispute: Denying claims that the move was blackmail, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a conference call that Moscow only required a transition to a new payment system, according to CNN.

Peskov blamed the situation on unprecedented unfriendly steps in the economy and financial sector undertaken against us by unfriendly countries, CNN reported.

Suspicious timing: But the move occurred just a day after the U.S. and other Western allies agreed to provide heavier weapons to Ukraine driving up gas prices in Europe the same day, the AP reported.

Poland has become a critical gateway for the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, while Bulgarias new liberal government has severed many previous ties to Moscow.

POLAND, BULGARIA NOT YET IN DIRE STRAITS

Russias decision to cut off gas to Poland and Bulgaria will not immediately lead to energy shortages for the two countries, according to the AP.

Poland, for example, has been working for years to identify other sources of energy, and summer weather will make gas less critical for households, the AP reported.

Nonetheless, Warsaw was due to receive a sizable gas delivery from Gazprom that will need to be replaced, James Huckstepp of S&P Global Commodity Insights told The Wall Street Journal.

Possible retaliation: Polands Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki described the gas shutdown as retaliation for Polands Tuesday announcement that it would be sanctioning 50 Russian individuals and firms, including Gazprom, the BBC reported.

Polish President Andrzej Duda, meanwhile, said appropriate legal steps would be taken against Gazprom, according to the BBC.

Bulgarias situation is worse: Bulgaria gets more than three-quarters of its gas from Russia, and in comparison to Poland, the country has far fewer options to replace that resource, according to the Journal.

A pipeline to Greece through which the country intends to import gas from Azerbaijan has faced numerous delays, Tom Marzec-Manser of the ICIS analytics firm told the Journal.

An economic weapon: Despite these uncertainties, Bulgarias Energy Minister Alexander Nikolov said on Wednesday that his country had sufficient gas in storage for the coming month, according to the Journal.

Because all trade and legal obligations are being observed, it is clear that at the moment the natural gas is being used more as a political and economic weapon in the current war, Nikolov said.

Shareholders at three of the nations largest banks Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo voted down a proposal on Tuesday that would have spelled the beginning of the end for financing new fossil fuel developments, according to the Sierra Club, a principal sponsor.

Management at all three banks opposed the proposals, all of which failed.

But the Sierra Club,like others in the coalition of nonprofits and faith-based organizations that sponsored the proposal, is still counting it as a landmark win.

By the numbers: Just less than 13 percent of shareholders at Citi Group supported the measure, followed by about 11 percent at both Bank of America and Wells Fargo, according to Reuters.

Whats in the proposal: The measure called for banks to put in place credible plans by the end of the year that would ensure they no longer financed new fossil fuel development, Bloomberg reported.

A claim of victory? Observers sometimes tend to think of these votes like electoral politics, where its 51 percent or bust, Gabby Brown of the Sierra Club told Equilibrium.

But with shareholder resolutions, its really the case that even 10 to 15 percent is enough to make the company pay attention, she added.

Key thresholds passed: Any resolution that receives 5 percent of the vote which all three did is eligible to be refiled in the following year, according to a statement from Sierra Club.

Anything above 10 percent of the vote which all of these measures were is considered difficult for a company to ignore, the statement explained.

A sign of pressure: Such difficulties have past precedence. A 2020 push to oust former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond from the JPMorgan Chase board also failed with less than 15 percent. Nonetheless, Raymond resigned under pressure a few months later, according to Reuters.

BREAKING DOWN THE BATTLE LINES

Major pension funds from New York State, Rhode Island, New York City, and Seattle all supported the measure,as did representative of about $86 billion in capital, according to progressive magazine The New Republic.

But far more significant at least in this round was the opposition from bank managers themselves.

Thumbs on the scale: At the annual general meeting on the morning of the vote, Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser cast the proposal as an impossible attempt to shut down the fossil fuel economy overnight, The Financial Times reported.

Ben Cushing of Sierra Club told Equilibrium this was a clear mischaracterization of what these shareholder resolutions are asking for.

Instead, the proposal aimed to slow the increase in new fossil fuels, he said. And this is amid a situation in which there are already more existing fossil fuel resources than the world can safely burn, according to the International Energy Agency.

But key funders were still opposed: While none of the big three asset managers Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street responded to requests for comment, vote totals suggest that all three opposed the measure, according to The New Republic.

Thats in spite of the fact that all three are also members of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, which aims to get the financial industry on track to reach NetZero emissions by 2050.

Why did the big three oppose it? We dont know for sure, but BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has been publicly skeptical about divestment.

Divesting from entire sectors or simply passing carbon-intensive assets from public markets to private markets will not get the world to net zero, he wrote earlier this year in a letter to investors.

Double game: BlackRock also played up its fossil fuel commitments in a January letter to the state of Texas after officials there called out its climate pledges, according to CNBC.

Takeaway: Expect upcoming shareholder resolutions at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley to fail as well,but for these resolutions to begin impacting bank management long before votes occur on these resolutions again in 2023.

Failing corn harvests, Chile bids goodbye to lawns and Oregon braces for fire season.

Interconnected climate risks threaten global corn supplies

Grass a luxury in Chiles drought-plagued capital

Dried-up Oregon braces for fire season

Please visit The Hills Sustainability section online for the web version of this newsletter and more stories. Well see you tomorrow.

VIEW THE FULL VERSION HERE

Original post:

Equilibrium/Sustainability Ukraine's invasion leaves Siberia exposed to wildfire - The Hill

What is an access-based business model and how can it tackle waste and protect resources? – Qrius

Car clubs, bike shares, vacation rentals. As consumers, were becoming increasingly familiar with sharing or borrowing goods that have traditionally been owned, examples of whats known as an access-based business model.

Consuming access to products instead of the products themselves can play an important role in addressing environmental challenges. However, to meet future environmental challenges, we need to extend the application of access-based business models beyond finished goods, and rethink ownership of goods across the whole value chain.

Anaccess-based business modelis based on customers accessing the function or performance of goods, rather than owning them. Businesses that offer consumers access to products are increasingly emerging. In addition to cars, bicycles and homes, the model is available for clothing, power tools, headphones, detergent bottles and power banks. Offering access to products is also common between businesses, traditionally for large expenditures such as company cars or heavy machinery, and more recently also for products such as office furniture and lighting.

Access-based business models can tackle resource depletion, waste generation and other crises. Purchasing access, instead of products, makes consumption behaviour more sustainable by default, as it reduces the under-utilisation and rapid replacement of privately owned goods. In contrast to conventional linear consumption, the incentives to reduce consumption and return goods for reuse and recycling are built in. Car sharers, for example, were found toown 30% less cars than prior to car sharing.

Access to finished goods can, therefore, minimise the environmental and economic costs of manufacturing and consumption. Although the potential of access-based business models to address environmental challenges is recognised both economically and academically, the models have been slow to take off and their application predominantly to finished goods represents only a small fraction of the opportunity for impact.For example,as of 2014 the fleet of shared vehicles accounted for less than 0.1% of the almost 1 billion global in-use car fleet.

To solve global sustainability challenges, access-based business models will soon need to be applied not only to finished goods, but also to components and materials. What this means is that future material suppliers will no longer sell semi-finished goods like stainless steel sheets or PET granules instead, they will lease them out to product manufacturers, effectively selling components andmaterials as a serviceand offering their performance.

A supplier will, for example,lease stainless steelsheets to a car manufacturer to form the tubes for a chassis. Rather than owning the sheets, the car manufacturer will be charged to access the volume of material transformed into car chassis for an agreed period of time. At the end of this period, the car will be disassembled to allow the material supplier to retrieve the components and recycle the materials.

Such an approach creates anew ownership structurein which material suppliers own the components and materials, and the manufacturer only owns the value they have added by transforming them into the final product. In this model, components and materials cannot be physically consumed by the product manufacturer or the end-user of the product.

Just as car clubs build in incentives for sustainable consumer behaviour, this approach creates several important positive incentives for material suppliers and finished goods manufacturers. Because they retain ownership of their semi-finished goods, material suppliers will be incentivised to offer materials that are more efficient and durable and easier to recover at the end of product life, facilitating the shift towardsclosed-loop supply chains.

Committing to returning these materials will motivate product manufacturers to (re)design goods for access-based business models, rather than offering traditional goods for access. This will lead, for example, to the emergence of cars explicitly designed as goods that are leased instead of privately owned and using materials and components that stay in the value chain and are returned to suppliers instead of being scrapped.

To minimise recovery costs, material suppliers will incentivise product manufacturers to design for prolonged use of goods. They will also prompt manufacturers to design products that contain the least number of materials and are easy to disassemble, which will also make them easier to repair and enhance the purity of recycled materials.

Most importantly, with time-bound access to materials, product manufacturers will have to anticipate the moment when products become obsolete, design plans to intercept them and loop products back into production processes to reuse constituent components and materials. In this way product manufacturers will balance the operational cost of the components and materials they lease, against the revenue that they make from the products they sell or service. This structure will incentivise them to optimise material use, changing the game in resource management and leading to higher functional value provided by natural capital over a certain length of time.

Going one step further, this model can be applied not only to semi-finished goods, but also to minerals. Ownership of material resources does not have to remain with semi-finished goods suppliers. What if organizations upstream of material suppliers start to trade raw goods (i.e. unprocessed or minimally processed materials) without ownership exchange?

In the future, mining companies could lease raw goods to material suppliers using access-based business models, effectively offering minerals as a service. Moving a step further, nation states could stop giving rights for exploration or mining on certain lands to mining companies instead they could provide them with licence to mine permits that allow companies to mine but not to own the mined raw goods. For example, a nation state could lease iron ore to a mining company, who would then provide it to a steel and iron supplier. Ownership of mined minerals would remain with the country of origin and the licence to mine permits would come with the expectation that mined resources are eventually returned to the nation states in the original or processed form.

In an access economy, the complexity of modern finished goods will make it hard to recover the components, materials and minerals embodied in products and route them (back) to specific material suppliers. Hence, both current production and consumption systems and goods will have to be redesigned to service the model. In particular, goods will have to be optimised for reuse and recycling, and digital information embedded in them to ensuretraceability.

Infrastructure will have to emerge to intercept, separate, sort and recover materials. Further, all organizations in the value chain will have to adopt strategies for shared value creation and invest in ongoing collaborative relationships with partners over linear transaction-oriented relationships. Finally, addressing these challenges will not be possible without policy development and changes in culture and mindset from governments, businesses and consumers.

Chemical leasingis an example of component as a service business model offering the function or performance of chemicals in the manufacturing process. However, it lacks the dimension of returning chemicals at the end of use, which is key for a true circular solution.

Extending access-based business models throughout the value chain implies a systemic change to our production and consumption systems. This calls for a holistic review of the resource flows for finished, semi-finished and raw goods. The parties who have a stake in resource flows must come together to rethink ownership of goods in the three states to identify the opportunities to create commercial value and achieve sustainable impact. Simultaneous implementation of multiple access-based models might be appropriate in some value chains. Moving to new business models with new incentives can ensure that value chains are truly sustainable and help businesses play their part in protecting the earth and its resources.

Marco Aurisicchio (PhD),Associate Professor, Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London

Anouk Zeeuw van der Laan (PhD),Head of Circular Economy, Common Seas

Graham Aid (PhD),Innovation Coordinator, Ragn-Sells Group

Lars Nybom,Innovation Manager, Ragn-Sells Group

This article was first published in World Economic Forum

Stay updated with all the insights.Navigate news, 1 email day.Subscribe to Qrius

See the article here:

What is an access-based business model and how can it tackle waste and protect resources? - Qrius

EGY, GLR, ALS: Why are these energy and resource stocks trending today? – Kalkine Media

When it comes to investing in stocks, investors aim to find market-beating opportunities. However, the unpredictability and volatility of stock markets make it necessary to conduct thorough research and due diligence before investing in them. The war between Russia and Ukraine and the geopolitical tensions surrounding it has pushed up the prices of almost everything, causing the worst economic slowdown in decades and forcing international organisations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to downgrade the growth outlook.

This slowdown has, in turn, put huge pressure on the energy and resource sector, as it is cyclic in nature and reflects the state of the economy. The sector was already struggling due to the pandemic, and the war and subsequent supply chain disruptions mean that it will need more time to fully recover from the setbacks. Since the sector is highly speculative, investors should choose the right mix of stocks to make a profit from it.

2022 Kalkine Media

Recently, a few energy and resource stocks in the UK were in the spotlight. Let us take a look at their performance and see if they can be good investment bets.

The US-headquartered energy company is involved in the exploration and production of crude oil, and its properties are located in West Africa's Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. On Tuesday, the company made an announcement that in the Etame field, offshore Gabon, it has successfully completed the Avouma 3H-ST development well.

Vaalco reported strong performance in the fourth quarter of 2021, with a net income of $34.4 million. The net income for the whole year stood at $81.8 million. Its market cap as of 27 April 2022 stands at 323.10 million, and it has given a return of 194.28% to its shareholders in the last one year, while the year-to-date return stands at 138.98%. Vaalco's share price stood at GBX 525.00 as of 8:12 am GMT+1 on 27 April 2022.

The UK-based mining firm is engaged in the exploration of metals like gold, manganese, iron ore, and copper. The company on Tuesday announced that it had commenced the exploration of gold and lithium projects in Southwest Zimbabwe.

Galileo's shares were trading at GBX 1.20, up by 6.79% at 8:48 am GMT+1 on 27 April 2022. The company's market capitalisation currently stands at 12.44 million. Galileo's stock has given a return of 22.67% on a year-to-date basis.

The UK-based company is engaged in the development and production of minerals, and its portfolio includes gold, silver, copper, zinc, bauxite, and iron ore projects in Africa. On Tuesday, the company announced 'encouraging gold results' from drilling at its Tabakorole gold project in southern Mali.

Its market capitalisation, as of 27 April, stood at 62.18 million. In the last one year, Altus Strategies' shares have plunged by 22.06%. Shares of the FTSE AIM All-Share constituent were trading flat at GBX 53.00 on 27 April 2022 at 8.50 am GMT+1.

Note: The above content constitutes a very preliminary observation or view based on market trends and is of limited scope without any in-depth fundamental valuation or technical analysis. Any interest in stocks or sectors should be thoroughly evaluated taking into consideration the associated risks.

Read more:

EGY, GLR, ALS: Why are these energy and resource stocks trending today? - Kalkine Media

More Than 9 Million People to Benefit from Essential Health Services in Benin – Benin – ReliefWeb

WASHINGTON, April 27, 2022 The World Bank has approved $187 million in financing from the International Development Association (IDA)* to help Benin improve the quality of and access to primary health care services and strengthen its public health emergency response capacity.

The Benin Health System Enhancement Program, a Program-for-Results (PforR) project, will help improve the quality of and access to primary health care services, with a focus on reproductive, maternal, neonatal, child, and adolescent health, and nutrition. This project will provide essential health services to close to nine million people and basic nutrition services to more than four million children. Over 2.8 million children will be immunized and more than two million births will be attended by skilled health personnel. The project will also help improve disease surveillance in Benin and enhance its ability to respond quickly and effectively to public health emergencies.

Despite efforts in recent years, Benins health system still faces challenges to provide quality services at all levels, including maternal and child health services. Adequately training personnel and equipping facilities will lead to standardized quality basic services to bridge the current gap between adequate access to services and good results in maternal, neonatal, and child health, notes Attou Seck, World Bank Country Manager for Benin.

This new program will build on the achievements of the Health System Performance Project (2010-2017), which implemented a performance-based financing system in eight health zones and significantly improved the coverage of maternal, neonatal, and child health services, quality of care, and the institutional capacity of the Ministry of Health.

Substantial financing in the health sector is one of the governments priorities for strengthening human capital. The government is committed to developing quality infrastructure and recruiting skilled personnel to bring the health system up to standard and provide quality primary health care to women and children, says Romuald Wadagni, Minister of State in charge of Economy and Finance. This new program-for-results project reflects the governments commitment to boost social investments through optimal public resource management.

This operation is in line with the Government Action Program 2021-2026, Pillar 3 of which focuses on increasing access by the Beninese people to basic social services and social protection.

*The International Development Association (IDA) is the World Banks fund for the poorest. Established in 1960, it provides grants and low- to zero-interest loans for projects and programs that boost economic growth, reduce poverty, and improve poor peoples lives. IDA is one of the largest sources of assistance for the worlds 76 poorest countries, 39 of which are in Africa. Resources from IDA bring positive change to the 1.6 billion people who live in IDA countries. Since 1960, IDA has supported development work in 113 countries. Annual commitments have increased steadily and have averaged $21 billion over the past three years, with about 61% going to Africa.

PRESS RELEASE NO: 2022/061/AFR

Contacts

In Cotonou:

Gnona Afangbedji,

yafangbedji@worldbank.org

See the original post here:

More Than 9 Million People to Benefit from Essential Health Services in Benin - Benin - ReliefWeb

Businesses face losses over five-day weekend – Business Daily

EconomyThursday April 28 2022

Biashara Street with slow business on a public holiday as most Nairobians choose to stay away from the central business district. PHOTO | DIANA NGILA | NMG

Investors and businesses are staring at billions of shillings in losses following the unprecedented five-day-long holiday that starts from Friday to Tuesday.

The losses will be the product of business closures in top investments like the banks, schools, courts, government offices and the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) #ticker: NSE as well as the currency market.

The economy generateson average Sh25.3 billion daily and the five-day official shutdown looks set to deny workers and investors billions of shillings in earnings.

The five-day weekend comes after the government declared Tuesday a public holiday to mark Idd-ul-Fitr in addition to Mondays Labour Day rest.

The government had also declared Friday a national holiday following the death of President Mwai Kibaki.

Analysts said the holiday in the middle of a working week comes with huge costs to the economy that is yet to fully recover from the effects of Covid-19, which triggered layoffs, pay cuts and business closures.

Kenya cannot afford the luxury of more public holidays on a weekday, said XN Iraki, a lecturer of economics at the University of Nairobi.

He faulted the mid-week breaks, saying they will rob the country of man-hours and slow down economic activity.

It is very expensive, with every [formal] worker earning on average Sh2,226 a day for about half of our population. If you include the multiplier effect in the informal economy and the fact that on Thursday people will not really work and when they come back on Wednesday suffering hangover they will also be slow, then you are looking at an even bigger figure, Mr Iraki added.

The NSE on Wednesday traded shares and bonds worth Sh4.6 billion.

The bourses closure on Friday, Monday and Tuesday means loss of commissions for brokers and the stock market, and of trading profits for investors.

Manufacturers say the holidays will disrupt the production process, forcing the industrialists to reschedule production and transportation of raw materials and finished goods.

Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM)the industry lobby says firms that would opt to operate will be forced to pay workers more in overtime compensation.

There will be a cost implication for those that continue production during the public holidays. This is because, depending on a specific companys human resource policies and existing labour laws, there has to be a mode of compensation, said Phyllis Wakiaga, the chief executive of KAM.

Although Kenyas banking system has gone largely digital allowing mobile banking and payments via platforms such as M-Pesa, this is mostly limited to smaller value transactions.

Larger deals that require full banking operations will be delayed as well as payments requiring clearance such as cheques and correspondence banking across borders.

Consumption will also be affected as people stay at home, cutting spending on transport, airtime and other consumer goods.

Obado Obado, the owner of a popular Nairobi restaurant Caf Deli, says five days is such a long time for his outlets located in the central business district (CBD).

He said restaurants based in town expect to see nearly 70 per cent decline in sales during the period.

For restaurants like us based in CBD we target people who work in offices and have to come to town. During holidays the best we can do is 30 per cent sales, so five days is very bad for us, it is like the Covid-19 period again, said Mr Obado.

Matatu Owners Association (MOA) chairman Jimal Ibrahim said unlike the past when the public service vehicle operators used to switch to private business serving up-country routes, this holiday comes as a surprise and most operators will not be able to make the switch.

He said as people stay at home, matatu operators expect to cull their routes by almost 70 percent, hurting vehicle owners with loan payments who will have to do without revenues during the holiday.

The Kenyan economy has barely recovered from the ravages of the Covid-19 period when it shrank to negative 0.3 percent in 2020.

Analysts said the holiday comes with huge costs to the economy whose growth forecast for 2022 is estimated at 6.0 percent from an estimated 7.6 percent in 2021 despite the August 9 General Election.

Kenyas economy has a history of slowing down during election years when firms put investment decisions on hold pending a return to normalcy in the political landscape.

Economic growth, for example, slowed to 4.81 percent in 2017 as a result of the bitterly contested presidential election from 5.88 percent a year earlier.

The same trend was seen in 2008 when the violence in the aftermath of the December 2007 presidential election sank economy to a growth to 0.23 percent from 6.865 percent the year before.

The notable exception was in 2013 when the economy grew 5.8 percent after the Supreme Court amicably resolved a presidential dispute compared with 4.56 percent the year before.

[emailprotected]

Continue reading here:

Businesses face losses over five-day weekend - Business Daily

The Rise of the Chief Project Officer – HBR.org Daily

With the significant increase in automation of operations and the increase in change initiatives and project work, a new role is emerging in the executive committee. Companies are beginning to consolidate responsibility for orchestrating and successfully implementing the organizations continuous transformation and significant strategic initiatives within a single C-level executive.

Its not only multinationals and for-profit organizations. The CEO of a nonprofit that competes for government contracts to improve health care recently wrote me: I plan to add a chief project officer to my small executive team. This individual would not only lead a newly re-constituted PMO [Project Management Office] but would lead one of the most important projects we will perform over the coming year: building the structure and culture needed for project success.

These are just a few of many organizations creating a similar role. Their mandates and exact titles differ, but their primary responsibilities remains the same: to drive major strategic projects in the organization, streamline the project portfolio to accelerate growth and value creation, and deliver on the sustainability and diversity agenda. I propose a single, plain-language title for this role: The chief project officer. This article will explore the benefits a CPO can bring, how to understand whether your organization needs a CPO, and how to hire one.

The emergence of the chief project officer coincides with exponential increase in projects over the past two decades, a phenomenon I cover extensively in the HBR Project Management Handbook.

The 20th century was the golden age of operations. In 1908, Henry Ford launched the Model T, perfecting the mass production of automobiles. Three years later, Frederick Winslow Taylor presented his theory of how to improve worker productivity by determining how a task could be performed more efficiently.

To support this model, organizations were structured functionally in vertical departments such as marketing, logistics, and accounting. Staff skills were developed to reach departmental objectives. Information systems and processes were adjusted to reflect this reality. Even company profitability was broken down by department. The COO, who focused on leading, managing and running the operations of a company, emerged as a preeminent leadership role in most organizations. And it worked: Productivity skyrocketed, decade after decade.

After the turn of this century, however, something changed. Since the tech boom, productivity growth has been almost flat in the west, despite the explosion of the internet, shorter product life cycles, and exponential advancement in AI and robotics. Why? There comes a point after which a strategy of more volume, more product releases, and more brand extensions simply runs out of road. Sustainable growth through further efficiency becomes impossible, especially in times of uncertainty and rapid change. And change cannot be implemented with efficiency methods. Change must be implemented through projects.

Thirty years ago 80% of the resources in an organization were dedicated to operations, and 20% to projects; today, that ratio has flipped.

Despite this massive disruption, most organizations still dont have one senior leader overseeing all the project activities in an organization, as we had with the chief operating officer. Imagine if the manufacturing of electric cars had the sourcing of the components, the assembly, and testing of the cars all answering to a different executive sponsor rather than a single COO. Redundancy, waste, and strategic drift would be rampant. Yet thats how many organizations still run their projects.

The lack of clarity and ownership in the project space is one of the most common challenges I hear from CEOs and executives. Combined with the exponential growth in projects this obscurity leads to silo thinking, project overload, demotivation, projects not delivered, and a massive amount of resources wasted and value lost.

The chief project officer goes far beyond the direct sponsorship of individual projects. They must push their organization toward adopting a project-driven structure and foster a collaborative and empowering culture that reaches across silos. They must also collaborate with HR to ensure that project-management competencies are developed throughout the organization. The CPO has many responsibilities:

The core responsibility of the CPO is to work with the rest of the senior executives to translate the organizations strategy into programs, initiatives, and projects. The CPO will ensure that projects are appropriately selected, prioritized, and resourced, based on the strategic priorities of the organization and available capacity. The selection process must be fair and transparent, based on criteria against which both new proposals and ongoing projects are assessed. The Hierarchy of Purpose is a valuable tool to carry out this exercise.

In order to add new strategic projects, leaders must free up capacity and resources. In normal circumstances, employees and management are fully booked with projects on top of their day-to-day business activities. Projects must be stopped to make way for new ones.

There is an unwritten rule which says that if you have between one to three strategic projects, you have good chances of achieving all three. If you have between four and 10, you will only be successful with two. And if you have more than 10, you will not achieve any of them. I recommend having three strategic initiatives. Although it is painful, the CPO must be willing to ruthlessly cancel projects to increase the organizations focus and overall success.

The CPO plays a crucial role in clarifying accountability in projects and establishing a project governance committee to break silos and work together more closely as one organization. This committee decides which initiatives the firm will invest in and which will be stopped or delayed. The chair should be the CEO, with all the executives as members, and the CPO will facilitate the meeting. The committee should meet at least once per month. (The head of projects at Chipotle recently told me that they meet on a weekly basis due to their need to innovate constantly.)

Ineffective resource allocation leads to organizations launching more projects than they can carry out, overwhelming employees and harming their performance and engagement. The CPO will ensure that projects are not launched until the right resources have been selected and people have been freed up from some of their ongoing responsibilities.

Likewise, project managers and the executive sponsors need to be able to dedicate sufficient time to carry out the project successfully. In my experience, an organization in standard circumstances can stop about 50% of their projects without any real impact on the business.

The CPO, in partnership with learning and development teams, ensures that the organization develops the right capabilities to deliver diverse projects, including waterfall, agile, and hybrid frameworks, as well as introduction of new technologies, such as AI, to improve project implementation. They also make sure that business cases go beyond the narrow scope of projects deliverables to address broader issues such as sustainability and diversity. An essential last area for the CPO to champion is to create a more agile and project-driven organization that will help to deliver projects more successfully.

Beyond making sure that projects are progressing and completed, the CPO is responsible for ensuring that the full bottom-line targets of the projects are delivered and benefits are accelerated to deliver early when possible. The CPOs compensation should be linked to performance, with potential incentives for over-delivery. Finally, the CPO must ensure that projects are officially closed and that value and benefits delivered are measured and evaluated.

Every organization needs projects to generate value and keep their business alive. However, not every organization needs a CPO. The role is particularly effective within the context of large and midsized companies (both public and private). Consider the following seven questions to help determine whether your organization would benefit from a CPO:

If you answer yes to five or more of the questions, then your organization will undoubtedly benefit from a chief project officer. If you answered yet to three or four, you might consider establishing the role, as your organization will benefit from it soon.

When looking to hire, most organizations are surprised to realize that they may have already had an unofficial CPO in fact, many CEOs played the role of the CPO during the first months of the pandemic in 2019 and 2020. They focused all their time on selecting the most important projects mostly about the survival of their business ruthlessly canceling all the others, assigning the best resources to these few projects, and dedicating most, if not all, of their time to implementing these projects successfully.

My recommendation is to appoint an internal candidate to the chief project officer position, someone that has demonstrated several of the abilities required for the job and that board wants to groom as a potential candidate for CEO succession. As the role is an executive position, the hiring should be done by the CEO with the support of HR and eventual advice from the board. When an organizations situation is critical and radical changes are needed at speed, external candidates with the required competencies and experience should also be considered.

It is important to note that a CPO is not a project manager or a director of a project management office; the role goes beyond traditional project management and requires additional skills. Here is what to look for when hiring or appointing a CPO:

Most of these skills are part of the typical path of the MBA degrees, executive education, and grooming for the C-Suite. However, the final bullet, project management and project sponsorship are usually not. This should change now. In the project economy, potential CPOs and CEOs must find ways to develop these skills. HR leaders should be part of this vital change.

To be successful, the CPO should be independent and have full support from the board and the organizations CEO. The role can coexist with the COO, who will focus on operations, while the CPO will focus on projects. They should be fully integrated into the C-suite. Just as COOs have in the past, CPOs should behave like an extension of the CEO or even the board and, as such, hold the top managers accountable.

Now is just just the beginning for the chief project officer, and their rise will surely have ripple effects on executive teams. I even predict that within in the next 10 years the CPO role will overtake the COO in terms of seniority, power, and prestige. Today, most senior leader recognize that their organizations need to adapt and rapidly embrace new technologies such as AI and automation. This will lead to a further shift of focus and resources to project-based work and away from operations. CPOs may not be common yet in the C-Suite, but their steady emergence is a leading indicator of how companies will organize themselves to thrive in the project economy.

More:

The Rise of the Chief Project Officer - HBR.org Daily

More women are saying no to motherhood more than ever – WXYZ 7 Action News Detroit

BERKLEY, Mich. (WXYZ) More women are saying no to motherhood than ever before. The most recent census numbers show nearly one in six Americans 55 and older are without children- additional research shows more than a 1/4 of Michigan adults are saying no to kids as a conscious choice.

Despite the growing demographic, child-free women say they constantly get stigmatized as selfish or as someone that hates kids and the judgment has impacted their healthcare.

For Berkley's Tara Heitz, this is the picture-perfect family: one loving husband, three rambunctious rescue dogs, and exactly zero children.

I didnt know it was possible growing up that you could choose not to have kids, said Tara Heitz.

Tara did play house as a little girl but never wanted to play mom.

I dont remember ever really wanting to hold babies, but I liked other kids, so I just figured Id grow out of it, said Heitz.

She never really did- and when she met her now-husband who felt the same, her dream family would finally begin to take shape.

WXYZs Ameera David asked, Did you face some pushback?

I faced pushback from the oddest places, said Heitz.

Shockingly from health professionals- one incident in 2012 when Tara sought out a doctor to address her thyroid disorder.

His response to me was, well, if you would stop trying to be such a career woman and stay home and have some babies you wouldnt feel like this, said Heitz.

When looking for birth control- another battle. Womens doctors she says refused to prescribe medications she wanted because of their potential impact on fertility.

I went through 3 or 4 OBGYNs before finding someone who would listen to me, said Heitz.

It sounds to me like you werent believed, how did that feel? asked David.

At all. Youre standing there, whos just met me telling me you know better than I do what I want with my life after a two min conversation, its infuriating, said Heitz.

I remember hearing about an IUD, so I went in to request it and they told me no, and said well why? Well because you haven't had children, said Kim Bode.

Kim Bode, child-free on the west side of the state spent her 30s facing the same stigma-driven headwinds.

I just think people fear what they dont understand, said Bode. Motherhood and being a female, apparently they have to go hand and hand.

But that strong link between womanhood and motherhood is withering - a 2021 MSU study shows one in four Michigan adults dont want kids.

I realized that not only were the numbers growing around the world but that there were other women in exactly the same place looking for someone to talk to, said Karen Malone Wright.

Karen Malone Wright is the founder of thenotmom.com, a supportive space where women without kids - by chance or choice- can tap into community. Shes long tracked the growing trend of childfree women.

The number one reason that people give when asked by surveyors is I just dont want to, said Malone Wright.

For Tara and Kim, career commitment was a driving factor- but so was the desire to contribute in other ways - through volunteerism, by being a rescue dog mom, with ten pups between them, and by staying engaged as an aunt to their siblings' kids.

I have nieces and nephews that I adore, by being best aunt, said Heitz.

Do you feel any less happy for choosing not to have kids? asked David.

Absolutely not. I love my life, I love my dogs, my husband is fantastic, said Bode.

I think my message would be you can live a full life without it. You can still have a family; it just might look a little different than other people's.

Continue reading here:

More women are saying no to motherhood more than ever - WXYZ 7 Action News Detroit

Biden Is Purging From Health Care Anyone Who Thinks Babies Are People And Men Aren’t Women – The Federalist

Imagine an America in which a summa cum laude medical graduate interviews at countless medical schools but cannot find one that will tolerate her Christian faith, a faith-based pro-life clinic faces a financial crisis after having its federal Title X funds stripped away, and federal agencies discriminate against hospitals and clinics nationwide for refusing to kowtow to the administrations extremist stances on abortion, sexuality, and marriage.

That reality is already well on its way here, and will only get worse with the proposed elimination of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for health professionals. President Joe Bidens HHS announced last week that the agency is in the rulemaking processof rolling back former President Donald Trumps protections for medical personnel whose faith prevents them from performing procedures like abortion.

Already, the three above examples are happening.

I was top of my class (summa cum laude) as an undergrad at UC Berkeley, had an MCAT score above the average of all the medical schools I applied to, and I had participated in many extracurriculars, reports one young woman. I think I applied to essentially all of the medical schools in my home state of California. I did not get even a single interviewexcept for the faith-based school of Loma Linda.

In a national scientific survey of faith-based health professionals that I constructed in 2019, 3 in 5 respondents agreed with the poll statement that it is common that doctors, medical students or other health-care professionals face discrimination for declining to participate in activities or provide medical procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

Pro-life clinics like the example above will be at risk to lose federal Title X family planning funds thanks to the Biden administrations scheme, announced in April 2021, that would reverse a Trump administration policy and require grantees to make abortion referrals: Each project supported under this part must offer pregnant clients the opportunity to be provided information and counseling regarding pregnancy termination.

The abortion referral requirement affects pro-life clinics such as Staten Island, N.Y.s Beacon Christian Community Health Center. Beacon won an award under the Trump rule but no longer receives Title X funds to aid its low-income patients. The Biden administration is moving to effectively reserve those funds for its abortion business political supporters.

Finally, federal agencies are already working to discriminate against hospitals and clinics that dont match their ideology, eliminating conscientious objectors. Bidens HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra has signaled he will cease the prosecution of conscience law violators.

As The Federalist has documented, Bidens HHS has torn down the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, stripped the HHS Office of Civil Rights authority to enforce conscience and religious objections, dismissed a case of forced abortion participation, assured abortionists that We have your back, and rescinded conscience waivers that had allowed federal grants to faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.

The Biden administration now is churning out rules that aggressively enforce its ideology on abortion; religious exemptions; insurance coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients; sterilization; allowing men in womens sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms; compelled speech; and Title IX sexual harassment due process protections. These ideologically driven restrictions could slam the door on thousands of pro-life hospitals and clinics as well as highly effective faith-based social programs for adoption and foster care, food and clothing distribution, mental health service, ex-offender programs, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, marriage and family counseling, and teen pregnancy prevention programs.

Such animosity toward persons of faith and pro-life convictions would only accelerate and exacerbate the long-predicted physician shortage crisis, leaving poor and marginalized patients without the faith-based care on which they had depended.

At the top of the administrations list of ideological mandates, however, is abortion, an issue on which self-described good Catholic Joe Biden apparently suffers from catechetical dementia.In 2006, Biden proudly proclaimed, I do not vote for funding for abortion.

But in his 2019 presidential run, he dropped his long-standing support for the Hyde Amendment that prohibits most federal funding for abortion. His administrations blitzkrieg of rules is now embedding abortion ideology even further in government policy while essentially eliminating funding for abortion opponents.

The administrations anti-religion ideological purge threatens to create what Richard John Neuhaus warned of in 1984 a naked public square, a government devoid of religious participation, values, and moral influence. In particular, excluding people of faith from health care bodes severe consequences.

Both our 2019 national survey of faith-based health professionals and another in 2009 revealed that 91 percent of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience. They cannot separate their faith-motivated mission to care for the poor from their faith commitment to honor the sanctity of human life.

Left unchecked, the Biden administration may well succeed in driving the pro-life and faith communities out of partnerships with the federal government. The victims of the resulting naked public square will be millions of patients, the poor, and other needy and suffering individuals served by faith-based health and social services programs.

Jonathan Imbody is a writer and consultant with FaithSteps.net and has several decades of experience in federal healthcare and religious freedom public policy.

See more here:

Biden Is Purging From Health Care Anyone Who Thinks Babies Are People And Men Aren't Women - The Federalist

Before J6, Meadows Put Troops On Standby While Pelosi Refused Them – The Federalist

In its latest effort to implicate former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the violence on Capitol Hill last year, the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 revealed Meadows had been warned about the potential for unrest preceding the riot. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been warned too, and refused multiple requests to prepare.

Meadows, according to former advisor Cassidy Hutchinson, who was subpoenaed by the committee, was cautioned about the possibility of violence on Jan. 6 surrounding the presidents protests.

I know that there were concerns brought forward to Mr. Meadows, Hutchinson told panel investigators in March. I know that people had brought information forward to him that had indicated that there could be violence on the 6th. But, again, Im not sure if he what he did with that information.

The testimony was revealed in a 248-page court filing from the probes attorneys in an ongoing legal drama between Meadows and the Select Committee over White House records.

The committees revelation made headline news across legacy outlets, amplifying the probes discovery as an indictment against a primary target of the regimes investigation in routine fashion.

Meadows Was Warned Jan. 6 Could Turn Violent, House Panel Says, read The New York Times.

Meadows was warned Jan. 6 could turn violent, former White House official says, headlined another article in NBC.

Meadows was warned of violence before Jan. 6, new court filings show, The Washington Post wrote in front-page news as a most read column Saturday morning.

If the revelation that Meadows was told violence might occur surrounding the protest of a politically sensitive subject is a major scandal, however, perhaps the committee should probe why Pelosi denied requests to deploy the National Guard up to six times.

In December, the initial trove of Meadows documents published by the Select Committee revealed Meadows pledged the National Guard would be ready to maintain order. The records illustrate a White House chief of staff who was far from dismissive of violent threats as depicted by the committee investigating Jan. 6.

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect pro Trump people and that many more would be available on standby, the Select Committee wrote. Panel members framed the material as an unearthed scandal but it now undermines its latest made-up scandal four months later.

In fact, nearly everyone in Washington knew about the potential for political unrest to break out at the climax of a violent election cycle. Even the Capitol Hill parking attendants warned about the hazard.

Due to the possibility of large-scale public protests, access to the Capitol Plaza will be restricted, read an email from the House Parking Team on the eve of the riot obtained by The Federalist. For the safety and security of personnel on the House campus, we ask that staff strongly consider parking in the Cannon and Longworth House Underground Garages.

That Meadows, a former four-term member of Congress, would be totally oblivious to the idea that mass protests might deteriorate into an uproar is negligent thinking.

Whereas Meadows was a White House bureaucrat involved in the planning of a peaceful demonstration on the Ellipse, Pelosi possessed the authority to adequately prepare for what was to come on Capitol Hill, and she deliberately refused.

According to former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, the agency requested Speaker Pelosi approve the deployment of the National Guard six times ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. Sund said House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who works under Pelosi, thought the deployment was bad optics two days prior. Pelosi and House Democrats had previously condemned the use of federal troops in Washington to quell the violent mobs terrorizing the city.

The speakers deputies on the Select Committee investigating the attack, however, have publicly stated no interest in probing Pelosis own culpability.

If you look at the charge that we have in the resolution, it says the facts and circumstances around January 6. I dont see the speaker being part and parcel to that, Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told CNN last year.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Read more here:

Before J6, Meadows Put Troops On Standby While Pelosi Refused Them - The Federalist

The Inflation Draining Your Wallet Is A Whole Lot Steeper Than 8 Percent – The Federalist

The Labor Departments March inflation numbers released this month skyrocketed past Februarys, hitting a 12-month increase of 8.5 percent and the steepest annual increase since 1981. Thats no small figure, but most Americans know the inflation they encounter at the grocery store checkout, the gas pump, the car lot, and the leasing office is far higher than that.

Just look at basic items like groceries and gas, and youll see how much higher those necessities are climbing than the generic inflation figures slapped across headlines.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in the average U.S. city, ground beef is up 14.9 percent since last March, boneless stew beef is up 24.3 percent, bacon is up 23.1 percent, boneless chicken breasts are up 17.6 percent, eggs are up 25.9 percent, milk is up 17 percent, frozen orange juice concentrate is up 18 percent, and ground coffee is up 15.8 percent. Meanwhile, fuel oil has jumped a whopping 71.5 percent, and utility gas is up 23.3 percent.

Many of these urban numbers dont even capture how steeply prices have risen for middle America, however. In the Midwest, ground beef has risen 24.5 percent, almost 10 percentage points more than the urban average.

While BLS breaks down beef products into ground beef, steaks, stew beef, etc., its all other uncooked beef category shows a drastic 38.2 percent jump in the Midwest, compared to a still-high rise of 25.4 percent in cities. The inflation of the price of bacon in the Midwest is 3 percentage points higher than in cities, while for boneless ham its more than 15 percentage points higher. The price of boneless chicken breasts in the Midwest jumped by31.2 percent, compared to 17.6 in U.S. cities.

In all likelihood, these prices arent done climbing. Investment firm Evercore ISI projected the price of chicken breasts to jump at a year-over-year rate of up to 70 percent in the first half of 2022, with beef and pork prices rising 20 percent.

So when you hear 8 percent inflation bandied about but feel certain your costs are rising at a far higher rate, youre not crazy youre just feeling the very real consequences of inflationary policies that Washington types are happy to brush off.

Dont listen to CNN journo-splaining to you Why inflation can actually be good for everyday Americans and bad for rich people. As Axios reported from Labor Department statistics, Shoppers with incomes of less than $40,000 arent buying as much fresh meat and seafood. Theyre turning to frozen meat or canned stuff instead and buying more store brands. Its these lower-income shoppers who are most at-risk as food prices rise.

Its also not just gas and groceries that are rising higher and faster than the nationally reported inflation numbers. According to a Redfinanalysis, February saw a 15 percent year-over-year increase in asking rent, and a 31 percent jump in the national homebuyers median monthly mortgage rate. Americans in the market to buy used vehicles have also seen a far higher price spike than the overall inflation rate in the past year, at a whopping41.2 percent as reported in March.

At the same time, wages cant keep pace with rising expenses, meaning Bidenflation is skimming off the top of Americans paychecks to the tune of around $4,200 in annual depreciation of the average salarys worth.

These are unsustainable numbers for most Americans, especially those who arent making as much as the politicians pushing bloated, multi-trillion-dollar spending plans to flood the economy with cash thats bleeding value. Legacy media outlets might try to downplay rising inflation as something that could be solved by eating lentils and letting the family pet die, but Americans know every time they buy groceries, fill the gas tank, or pay the utility bill how hard high-spending inflationary policies are making their lives.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

More here:

The Inflation Draining Your Wallet Is A Whole Lot Steeper Than 8 Percent - The Federalist

YouTube And Instagram Choke The LaBrants’ Pro-Life Video – The Federalist

Mere minutes after Christian social media influencers Cole and Savannah (Sav) LaBrant uploaded a pro-life documentary to YouTube, the platform demonetized the video and removed it from its algorithm showing popular content. Instagram followed suit by deleting the LaBrants in-feed post, stating it did not adhere to Instagrams community guidelines. According to the LaBrants, the money that came from the YouTube ads would have been donated to crisis pregnancy centers.

This video came as a shock to many of the LaBrants loyal fans, as this type of content is not normal for the account despite their outspoken Christian views. Instead, they are known by their nearly 19 million Instagram followers for their adorable children, lighthearted content, and hilarious dance videos.

After teasing a new documentary for their YouTube channel for weeks, the couple released the nearly 40-minute documentary on abortion. The video has many facets and includes a look into the formation of a baby in the mothers womb, how abortion procedures work, and crisis pregnancy center resources.

This topic is near and dear to the hearts of Cole and Sav. When Sav was 19 years old, she became pregnant. While she says it was never a question of whether she would keep her baby, she understands the terror that a woman can feel when facing an unplanned pregnancy.

Before posting the documentary, many mentors and friends asked why they would add fuel to the fire, telling them that so much was at stake.

If this saves just one baby, its worth it, Cole said.

Its no surprise these toxic outlets would try to stifle a documentary that goes against the extremist narrative and could cause countless women to choose life instead of allowing them to believe that abortion is their only option. This is just another example of Big Tech censoring viewpoints that they dont agree with.

While the documentary received more than 3 million views, its reach was still significantly hampered by the quieting hand of Big Tech censorship.

The video wasnt just their opinion but included experiences from doctors who had performed abortions. It also included the story of Coles grandmother and how she refused to get an abortion after becoming pregnant as a teen, resulting in the birth of Coles mother.

I was never sorry. When you hold that baby, everything that was scary just goes away, Coles grandmother said.

The second half of the video pivots to a crisis pregnancy support group called Embrace Grace.

The LaBrants spoke with moms who had been helped by the center and highlight how they chose life for their babies. Through it all, the documentary shows there are other options for moms besides abortion.

One of the moms at the center told the incredible story of how she had gotten an abortion, only to discover months later that the pill hadnt worked. She was still pregnant with her miracle baby and decided in that moment to choose life.

Now, she cant imagine life without her daughter and wants her to know that she is a miracle. God heard my prayer, and He redeemed me, she said.

Following the documentarys release, angry fans and other critics posted rebuttal videos and articles, calling the documentary disgusting, manipulative, and harmful. Others were horrified that the family would compare abortion to the Holocaust, as the video compared the number of babies killed in abortions to the number of people killed in the Holocaust along with other genocides.

The suppression of this beautiful documentary shows that Big Tech is becoming more fearless and blatant with its unconstitutional censorship. It is appalling that these platforms would work to silence a message that provides help, information, and resources to women who desperately need it.

Why would Big Tech do this? What is in it for them to silence alternatives to abortion?

All babies, no matter the circumstances, are fearfully and wonderfully made by a loving God. They deserve a chance to live, not to be snuffed out before their first breath.

As we pray that this genocide will come to an end, we hope that soon, despite their best efforts, Big Tech wont be able to censor the outcry of support and love for all children born and preborn.

Bailey Duran is a writer who is passionate about faith, family, and traditional American values. She graduated from Liberty University in May 2021 with a B.S. in journalism.

See the article here:

YouTube And Instagram Choke The LaBrants' Pro-Life Video - The Federalist

How Democrats’ Culture War Is Destroying Their Ability To Govern – The Federalist

New York Times columnist Charles Blow recently claimed to be truly shocked by a poll showing President Biden with a 33 percent approval rating. I was shocked, too how could his approval rating be that high?

Blow, of course, is surprised at Bidens unpopularity, and worried that the Democrats are stumbling into a bloodbath in the November midterms. Blow is paid to understand and explain politics and culture to his readers. That he is surprised reveals a lot about the bubble he is in. And his meandering analysis of Democrats problems illustrates how the ideology making Democrats unpopular is also preventing them from understanding why they are unpopular.

Blow initially blames Biden for being too much of a decent man sober and straightforward rather than a showman. This is a ludicrous assessment of a politician, who, until age caught up with his tongue, was one of D.C.s preeminent bloviators. Nonetheless, Blows ordinary partisan delusion is less interesting than the ideological blind spots revealed when he turns to genuine sources of Bidens unpopularity, such as the fear of crime and the pinch of inflation and that Republicans are playing heavily into culture war issues.

Although Blow does not seem to realize it, these issues combine to reinforce voters disapproval of Biden. Democratic failures on bread and butter issues such as crime and inflation are related to the culture-war radicalism that has captured their party.

Twitter, not the blue-collar union hall, is now the heart of the Democratic Party, which is controlled by the educated, urban professional-managerial class, epitomized by woke, union-busting CEOs. This faction has merged the class and culture wars championing cultural radicalism, entrenching its own economic interests, and neglecting the common good.

The Democrats are the party of wealthy diversity consultants lecturing hourly workers about white privilege and cis-heteropatriarchy while inflation eats away at wages and investment firms buy up homes in the hope of making America a nation of permanent renters. The governing priorities of those running the Democratic Party are sending government money to their clients (from teachers unions to Planned Parenthood) and waging culture war.

And they are fanatical culture warriors. Consider Blows complaint that the GOP is challenging the teaching of Black history and the history of white supremacy in schools, as well as restricting discussions of L.G.B.T. issues and campaigning against trans women and girls competing in sports with other women and girls. He adds that Republicans are using white parental fear, particularly the fears of white moms.

This litany of whines highlights the bubble Blow and his audience at The New York Times are in. Ordinary Americans know the difference between teaching history and teaching poisonous ideology derived from critical race theory. Americans understand that it is unjust for males to compete in womens sports, and that it is perverse to teach young children about sex and gender ideology. They are angry when educators encourage children to transition, and outraged when they hide it from parents.

Voters have also noticed that the cultural left never stops where it says it will. We were assured that the LGBT movement was about tolerance for consenting adult relationships; now it is about transgender toddlers, child drag queens, and men in girls locker rooms. We are also now told that being anti-racist somehow means judging people based on the color of their skin. Blow and other bubbled liberals may be okay with mastectomies for confused teenage girls, but most Americans are not.

This cultural radicalism erodes Democrats ability to govern competently. Sometimes this is the result of neglecting the basic tasks of government in order to prioritize boutique cultural issues, other times it is a direct consequence of ideology, as exemplified in the crime wave resulting from woke prosecutors and defunding the police.

In either case, wokeness is an ideology for those who are cushioned from its consequences. Indeed, wokeness is primarily a phenomenon of the college-educated, and especially the well-off; it is a niche, luxury political philosophy that thrives among the privileged and in the shelter of academia.

But though it is often a political liability, there are ways it serves the interests of its adherents. In particular, woke ideology legitimates the rule of the woke over the non-woke, and justifies economic exploitation and socio-political repression.

Wokeness claims to reveal the systems of unjust oppression that permeate society; it focuses on race, sex, and gender, and relegates economic class to a second-tier concern. This allows many of the privileged and powerful to claim to be righteous allies of the oppressed without having to sacrifice economic or social power or position. Indeed, many can claim to be oppressed themselves. This is why wokeness tends to focus on BIPoC and LGBT representation in boardrooms and Ivy League campuses, rather than helping the working class.

Thus, it is to be expected that woke discourse often suggests that the working class (especially working-class whites) have it coming for their sins of racism, sexism, transphobia, and so on the wicked deserve punishment, not sympathy. This is why pundits such as Blow are so quick to accuse dissenters of racism and bigotry. And it is why the woke left supports oligarchic power in pursuit of its aims, and eagerly uses economic, technological, and cultural power to suppress dissent.

This is why professors are having to submit woke loyalty oaths in the form of diversity statements, and why mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training has become the norm in the corporate world. This is why the left is eager to use social media censorship to suppress misinformation which in many cases is truth that is inconvenient to the regime (e.g., the Hunter Biden laptop story).

It is also why the left cannot understand its own failures. They have isolated themselves in a bubble that has drifted so far from reality and the concerns of normal voters that even electoral disaster may not bring them back to Earth. Cocooned in privilege and ideology, they think Biden is doing just fine. But most Americans have had enough of a government that is more committed to transitioning children than to controlling crime and inflation.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Go here to read the rest:

How Democrats' Culture War Is Destroying Their Ability To Govern - The Federalist

Letter: No, Hillary Can’t Try To Hide Her Oppo From The Special Counsel – The Federalist

The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committees claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durhams office on Friday.

That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsels pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmanns former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsels office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmanns efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNCs motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsels office to key facts about the FECs recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to outside research firms such as Fusion GPS to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing opposition research into Donald Trump.

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that the research was not for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice, but to further the political and campaign-related goals of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges.

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsels office, the FEC had found probable cause to believe the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FECs Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum will not be made public for another week, the letter explained.

Foundation counsel Dan Backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsels office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durhams team further details on the FECs investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Fridays letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNCs commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to not further contest the Commissions finding of probable cause to believe that the political organizations had falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services. In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, the letter stressed.

The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating, the foundations letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement material in ruling on any privilege claims.

Whether the special counsel will follow the foundations suggestion and obtain the memorandum prepared by the FECs Office of General Counsel before the judge in the Sussmann case rules on the Clinton campaign and the DNCs assertions of attorney-client privilege is yet to be seen. But what is clear is that the special counsels office intends to ensure the jury knows that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC believe communications relevant to Sussmanns efforts to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax are protected by attorney-client privilege.

On Friday we also learned just how the special counsel hopes to do thatby having representatives of both the Clinton campaign and DNC testify at trial. That revelation appeared in a response brief Sussmanns attorneys filed last week, wherein the defense team noted that they had just learned that the special counsel had issued trial subpoenas to both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. According to Sussmanns legal team, the special counsel requested the testimony of witnesses from those political organizations regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.

Sussmann is now also seeking to exclude that testimony and claims that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC will likewise seek to quash the subpoenas.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind the claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FECs conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.

The question Fridays letter to the special counsels office raises, however, is whether the Clinton campaign and the DNCs settlement agreement with the FEC, in fact, forecloses their claims of privilege in the Sussmann case. Backer believes it does, telling The Federalist, The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they wont contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement and also run to federal court and say, No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.

That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: No, Hillary Can't Try To Hide Her Oppo From The Special Counsel - The Federalist

‘Transhood’ Shows Why Kids Are Incapable Of Making Medical Decisions – The Federalist

Every parent reading this should immediately stop and go watch HBOs Transhood (2020) documentary. It will enlighten, depress, and alarm you all at once, and its the best way to understand the crisis thats happening with so many of Americas children.

The film follows four families in Kansas City, Missouri, all of which include a child who identifies as transgender. It takes place over five years. Two of the children, 12-year-old Jay (a girl who identifies as a boy) and 15-year-old Leena (the opposite), have been placed on hormone pharmaceuticals by their parents in order to suppress their natural puberty.

The other two, 7-year-old Avery (a boy who identifies as a girl) and 4-year-old Phoenix (the same) are not receiving hormone drugs but they are dressed in female clothing and referred to as girls. Averys hair is dyed purple and pink. Phoenixs entire wardrobe is draped in rainbow.

In the most shocking scene, Leena, who wants his penis to more closely resemble a vagina (a procedure that literally involves splitting the phallus longways in half), visits a surgeon, Dr. Marci Bowers, who tells him, The thing is, a penis is basically the same thing as a clitoris. Everything a girl has, a boy has and everything a boy has, a girl has.

Bowers is a man who identifies as a woman. And he should immediately have his medical license revoked for lying to a child, encouraging him to permanently mutilate his sex organs.

But, if you can believe it, there are plenty of other confounding moments.

Avery, the 7-year-old, is very obviously used by his weird mother as a prop for her political activism. Avery is prostituted out on the cover of National Geographic, like an animal.

Hes also dragged to Washington, D.C., for a protest and to sign copies of an illustrated book, under his name, about being a transgender child. Avery hates all of it, and without a flicker of irony, his mother tells him, The problem is you do approve things and then you change your mind.

Avery: I just dont want to even have a book. Ive done too much in this world to ruin my life enough and now everyone in this world is going to know if I sell my book, its going to get on the news along with me for, like, the 50th time at this point, and its just going to make my life worse.

Averys mother: A couple years ago you wanted people to know. But now?

Avery: Yeah, I did but that was a stupid, silly mistake and now I dont.

To that end, 4-year-old Phoenix, who begins the movie by wearing dresses and referring to himself as a girl-boy, ultimately reverts back to identifying as male. This boys father says early in the documentary, I dont really feel like Phoenix ever was a boy, only to say later, Theres a lot to it where I dont know if [Phoenixs mother] Molly or I made the right decisions.

In another scene, the mother of 12-year-old Jay sobs because her insurance wont cover her sons hormone replacement shots. The doctor administering the treatment appears taken aback, because, she says, Usually if something is medically necessary, insurance will cover it.

Not a clue in sight, I guess.

To the contrary, the signs telling these parents that this is not okay are everywhere. Avery at one point says, Why do I have to grow up? I just want to stay a kid.

In another scene, 15-year-old Leena discusses a classmate, a boy, who broke up with her. When I was dating Brian, it felt like an authentication, she said. Im dating a straight man and he sees me as a woman and I was so excited because, like, thats all I wanted. She said that Brian eventually told her that he was using me as a cover up because he was unsure of his identity in the sexual world.

Its a rude awakening to this young person affirmed by his parents and medical providers that hes not the sex he was born as that straight boys are highly unlikely to view other biological males as female.

In another, a woman who identifies as a man is seen cutting the hair of teenage Jay, while explaining, Ive had a complete, total hysterectomy.

Any sane person would feel compassion for both the children and for the confused parents. But only a stupid or sick person would believe that the best way to treat a gender-dysphoric child is to affirm his or her mental state with irreversible hormone treatments and surgeries, before the child is even old enough to sign a consent form.

Its worth repeating that these arent random people I found on Tik Tok. Theyre children featured in a documentary on HBO. Thats how big this problem has become.

Read more:

'Transhood' Shows Why Kids Are Incapable Of Making Medical Decisions - The Federalist

Facebook Censored, Then Wiped A Conservative Wisconsin News Page – The Federalist

Facebook obliterated an award-winning conservative Wisconsin news page and cut off thousands of its followers without warning this week after wrongfully censoring it for months.

The Silicon Valley giant censored Wisconsin Right Now after the popular news site posted a story from The Australian to its Facebook feed that compared a picture of the infamous Falling Man from 9/11 to the horrific footage of Afghans falling from planes following President Joe Bidens disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Facebook quickly hid the post and slapped it with a community standards violation for content related to suicide or self-injury.

WRN appealed the violation, noting that the article did not advocate for self-harm, and Facebook reversed its decision but still unpublished WRNs page.

A message from Facebook claimed that WRN violates Facebook Pages terms but did not specify why. The Big Tech company claimed that WRN could appeal if the unpublishing seemed to be a mistake but the link given by Facebooks support team is broken.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

Every American should be deeply concerned by the fact that a few unaccountable big tech companies are controlling the free flow of information in our democracy, and that the decisions they make are often arbitrary and unfair, Jim Piwowarczyk, WRN owner and contributor, told The Federalist. What has happened to us is a very troubling example of this, and we call on Facebook to reverse its decision.

Even before Facebook nuked WRNs main page, the social media company restricted the pages ability to invite new followers to like the page and live-stream videos for simply reporting the news.

Even though WRN won numerous awards for its airtight coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Facebook limited the news sites ability to share articles about the young gunman.

We led coverage on this case, going to the scene, interviewing witnesses a half-hour after it happened, uncovering missing ballistics evidence mentioned during the trial, and more, Piwowarczyk explained.

Facebook still suppressed WRNs coverage even after the media company published an analysis stating the firearm charge against Rittenhouse wouldnt stand under Wisconsin gun laws, something the judge presiding over the case publicly ruled one day later.

Facebook then did not remove the violations when Rittenhouse was acquitted, Piwowarczyk said.

Facebook also enlisted the help of its fake fact-checkers to censor reposts about Hillary Clintons role in promoting the Russian collusion hoax and a meme about Rittenhouse playing video games with his judge.

We have reported many stories the mainstream media will not, and it is highly questionable and troubling that Facebook would seek to prevent Wisconsin voters in a key battleground state (where Facebook-traced money was involved in elections) from learning all sides of the equation in the political debate and other news stories, especially as the midterm elections loom, Piwowarczyk said.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

See the rest here:

Facebook Censored, Then Wiped A Conservative Wisconsin News Page - The Federalist

Dems Have Zilch To Offer So They’re Smearing, Censoring The Opposition – The Federalist

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain offered an interesting insight into Democrats 2022 midterm election strategy on Sunday, musing about French President Emmanuel Macrons ability to win reelection despite a 36 percent approval rating, implying a similar possibility for U.S. President Joe Biden. Instead of trying to turn Bidens sinking approval ratings around by ditching failed policies, Democrats seem content with their underwater numbers so long as they can drive Republicans popularity even lower with smears and censorship.

Bidens approval rating is at 40.9 percent, according to the RealClear aggregate, although a Quinnipiac poll has him as low as 35 percent and a CNBC poll has him at 38 percent. A February NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll reported that 56 percent of Americans thought Bidens first year in office was a failure, and the month before a mere 25 percent were satisfied with his administration.

The Biden administration has helped drive its own approval ratings into the ground with crisis after self-induced crisis. Democrat-led Covid lockdowns and ballooning federal spending have caused the worst inflationary crisis in decades, coupled with energy prices that were on the rise even before Russias invasion of Ukraine thanks to Bidens war on oil and gas. Destabilization in Ukraine and a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan may top the list of Bidens most deadly mess-ups, but theyre far from the only line items.

From a first-day executive order requiringthat schools ignore the biological differences between male and female students from the athletic field to the bathroom if they wish to continue receiving federal funding, and keeping those same schools closed for months, to bragging about working with Big Tech to silence dissent, exacerbating a record-setting crisis at the U.S. Southern border, ousting people from their jobs with medical mandates, encouraging kids to chop off their genitals, and colluding with the National School Boards Association to smear parents as domestic terrorists, the Biden team has done everything possible to alienate voters.

Meanwhile, Bidens radical legislative agenda has crashed and burned, leaving him with nothing to offer voters but a list of failures. Biden could choose to learn from these mistakes and respond by securing the border, unhampering American oil production, respecting parents and free speech, and protecting minors from predatory sex propaganda. But instead, the White House is tacitly admitting it doesnt care that Americans dont like its agenda.

How is that a workable election strategy? It isnt, unless you can convince voters to hate or fear your opposition even more. Democrats spent all four years of former President Donald Trumps presidency pushing the Clinton campaign-funded Russia collusion hoax, aided by propagandists in the legacy media. When The New York Post broke news of sensational and incriminating Biden family scandals in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Big Tech and big media collaborated to nuke the story and censor those who tried to share it.

Those are just two of the most explosive examples. There are countless more of tech companies censoring conservative perspectives (including a sitting president), journalists running cover for Democrat conspiracy theories while lying about Republicans, and even tech barons like Mark Zuckerberg funneling nearly half a billion dollars to take over local election offices.

In a fair system, a president with approval ratings that are underwater by double digits would be worried about his next election, and probably worried enough to be making some big changes. But Biden has done nothing but double down. That signals just how confident his people are in their ability to collude with the censorship regime to smear their opponents or keep their arguments from reaching voters entirely. Censorship is a powerful political tool, and its part of why the laptop class is so panicked at the idea that someone with slightly more respect for free speech than they now owns the Twittersphere.

All of Bidens disasters point to a Republican victory in the midterms this fall, but Democrats unwillingness to let nosedives in the polls budge their cultural battles should be a chilling reminder to Republicans that Democrats havent played by the rules for years. The collaborators in the Biden White House, in the legacy media, and in Big Tech are so confident in their backroom rigging that they dont think they need to listen to what American voters think.

This should put urgency and tangible political reforms behind the broad and bipartisan desire among Americans to ensure American election processes are beyond reproach.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Read the rest here:

Dems Have Zilch To Offer So They're Smearing, Censoring The Opposition - The Federalist

GOP Governors Oppose Biden EO Creating Monopoly On Federal Construction Contracts – The Federalist

More than a dozen GOP governors wrote to President Joe Biden Tuesday signaling opposition to his executive order requiring government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on taxpayer-funded construction contracts exceeding $35 million, according to a newly obtained letter.

Biden signed Executive Order 14063 in February at a Maryland union hall. PLAs are collective bargaining agreements that are project-specific and give union contractors public works contracts. Led by Govs. Bill Lee of Tennessee and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, the group of governors say the president is essentially giving unions a monopoly on major federal government projects.

When mandated by government agencies, PLAs can interfere with existing union collective bargaining agreements and needlessly discourage competition from quality nonunion contractors and their employees who comprise 87.4% of the private U.S. construction industry workforce according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, they write, adding:

Reducing competition from some of the best union and nonunion construction firms and workers will exacerbate the construction industrys skilled labor shortage, delay projects, and increase construction costs by estimates of 12% to 20% per project, which will result in fewer infrastructure improvements, less construction industry job creation, and higher taxes.

PLAs make contractors change out existing employees with union hiring hall workers. Since 2009, more than half of the federal governments construction projects have been built by nonunion contractors, The Wall Street Journal reported, while the estimated 12 to 20 percent construction cost increase may result in fewer improvements to utility, affordable housing, roads, and bridges.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The construction industry is grappling with a skilled labor shortage of 430,000 workers, the group Associated Builders and Contracts determined in a 2021 report. The governors think Bidens order will exacerbate this, as well as delay projects and result in less infrastructure.

In short, the aforementioned policies will undermine taxpayer investment in billions of dollars of forthcoming public works projects financed by the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021 and additional bipartisan legislation passed by Congress, all of which was signed into law free from language requiring or encouraging the use of PLAs, the governors write.

Republican governors wrote to Biden in January seeking cooperation from his administration on infrastructure implementation. The governors called on federal agencies to work with states to draft regulations and guidance that allow maximum regulatory flexibility to prevent further federal overreach in order to protect economic growth.

In 2009, then-President Barack Obama signed an executive order encouraging PLAs. The order stipulated that agencies, on a case-by-case basis, when awarding a contract costing more than $25 million or more, may require a PLA when it will:

Advance the Federal Governments interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and be consistent with law.

It is the contention of the governors, roughly three months after their January letter, that the Biden administration must give states flexibility and avoid costly pro-PLA policies. A 2021 study by the Rand Corporation, a think tank that is partly funded by the U.S. government, found that a PLA mandate in Los Angeles resulted in fewer projects and spiked construction costs.

Other studies have shown similar results.

An October 2021 study authored by a former Saint Louis University professor found nonunion workers suffer around a 34 percent reduction in wages and benefits under government-enforced PLAs. A 2019 study released by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research found that the construction of New Jersey schools built under PLAs cost roughly 16 percent more than schools built free from such restrictions.

In addition to Lee and Hutchinson, the letter sent Tuesday was signed by Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Mike Parson of Missouri, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.

View the full letter here.

View original post here:

GOP Governors Oppose Biden EO Creating Monopoly On Federal Construction Contracts - The Federalist