Daily Archives: February 6, 2021

Below we proposed the analysis by Nadav Tamir on Peres Center.org

Two major phenomena intensified since Trump entered the White House and the color returned to the cheeks of shallow populist leadership, both nationally and internationally. One is a disregard for politically correct behavior and the other, an attack on freedom of expression in the media. The populist Trumpists resent the so-called "tyranny" of political correctness in contemporary discourse attributed to liberal agendas, yet they strive to impose restrictions on the media, which they view as an arm of the "liberal elite" alongside the judiciary and the professional public sector.

The populists' argument is that the Left avoids making clear statements regarding certain segments of the population, thereby promoting moral relativism, and preventing a clear distinction between good and evil. However, the distinction between what is considered PC and what is considered a clear statement is relative to the viewpoint of the beholder. More often it is the Right which prevents a clear and decisive statement when such an action serves their cause.

This is akin to the discourse on superstition: an empirical sociological analysis showed that most who believe in superstition define the concept of superstition as the beliefs of others, thus separating themselves from their own beliefs which they clearly take very seriously.

In the allegations against political correctness, a notable example of the phenomenon of intellectual dishonesty occurred during Barack Obama's presidency - the Right in the US and Israel criticized him for refusing to treat terrorism as a Muslim phenomenon, while at the same time categorizing criticism of Jewish groups or Israeli policy as anti-Semitic. To Obama's credit, it must be said that his refusal to generalize the phenomenon of terrorism to Muslims was justified. Muslims throughout the world are more often the victims of these same acts of terrorism, and they should be considered allies because their actions fighting Islamist terrorism may be much more effective.

The same people who were happy to condemn Obama for refraining from generalizing about Muslims, were the ones who (rightly) expressed shock at the New York Mayor's conduct toward the ultra-Orthodox in Brooklyn for their stand on vaccination or his definition of their refusal to comply with the Coronavirus regulations, as a Jewish phenomenon.

Another example of intellectual dishonesty is those on the Israeli Right who express shock at general statements made in Europe concerning Jews, including those relating to religious practice or the influence of "Jews" in the world. At the same time, the same people attempt to encourage liberal European countries to treat any Arab or Muslim immigrant as a security or demographic threat. Too many Israelis returning from Europe complain about the continents changing atmosphere and political orientation, due to Arab immigration. However, if they heard similar discourse regarding Jews, they would holler anti-Semitism and fight to prevent it.

The prevalence of self-censorship in the West in general, especially in the United States, is greatly pronounced regarding criticism of Israel or Zionism which is regarded as being anti-Semitic, while too many expressions of Islamophobia are highly tolerated. Many on the Right thought it problematic to use the Koran during a swearing-in ceremony (when Keith Allison was the first Muslim to be sworn in as a representative in the House), while for Jewish members of Congress including Orthodox ones, the use of the Jewish bible during their swearing-in has been a regular phenomenon on Capitol Hill for many years.

Similarly, President Trump's negative discourse regarding the Hispanic minority was received on the Right in Israel with equanimity. However, if the same rhetoric had been used against Jews, we would do anything in our power to silence it.

In Israel we strive to pressure other governments to take measures against Holocaust deniers, but for years we have refrained from acknowledging as genocide the massacre perpetrated by the Ottomans against the Armenians and other similar cases.

The fact that anti-Semitism had been declining in the US for many years before the Trump era, can be attributed to the fact that anti-Semitic discourse has become contrary to the accepted norm of political correctness. Until recently, it was very "un-cool" in America to be anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism began to flourish again when Trump became President and granted legitimacy to abusive statements toward minorities, breathing fresh air into racist, especially white supremacist movements.

"Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, 2017. Image by Samuel Corum, Anadolu Agency, Getty Images.

Similarly, sexual harassment and abusive remarks towards women also decreased dramatically as soon as statements which were once considered legitimate masculine behavior, went against the social norm of political correctness. However, such misogynist statements made a comeback when Trump entered the White House. Trump gave legitimacy to the hopes of men longing to bring back the good old days, disappointed that they could no longer tell sexist jokes. The quality of life for women who feel threatened by this discourse is not of any particular interest to the populists on the Right.

In a democracy, freedom of expression is an essential value. Legislation limiting this freedom should be avoided as much as possible. However, demanding non-abusive discourse and self-restraint is completely justified. We must be mindful that words can be offensive and lead to discrimination, especially of minorities and vulnerable groups. Curbing this type of rhetoric can make a significant positive impact on their quality of life. Unfortunately, populist Right-wing leaders are trying to do just the opposite.

The writer is the executive director of J Street Israel, a member of the board of the Mitvim think tank, adviser for international affairs at the Peres Center for Peace and Innovation and member of the steering committee of the Geneva Initiative. He was an adviser of President Shimon Peres and served in the Israel Embassy in Washington and as Consul General to New England.

See the original post:

The impact of the Trump era on political correctness, freedom of expression and everything in between - Gariwo

Two years ago, Titania McGrath, whose satirical Twitter accountregularly skewers the ideological excesses of social-justice culture,suggestedthat we should remove biological sex from birth certificates altogether to prevent any more mistakes. The joke (obvious to those who follow the culture wars closely, but perhaps obscure to those who dont) was directed at gender activists who insist that male and female designations assigned at birth are misleading (and even dangerous), since they may misrepresent a persons true gender identitythat internally felt soul-like quality that supposedly transcends such superficial physical indicia as gonads and genitalia.

But the line between satire and sincerity has become blurry on this issue. [December 17], theNew England Journal of Medicine(NEJM), widely considered to be the worlds most prestigious medical journal, published an article entitledFailed AssignmentsRethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates, arguing that (in the words of the abstract) sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people. The resemblance to Titania McGraths 2018-era Twitter feed is uncanny. Two of the authors are doctors. The third, Jessica A. Clarke, is a law school professor whoseeks to remake our legal systemso as to recognize nonbinary gender identities or eliminate unnecessary legal sex classifications.

The very idea of a dichotomous sex-classification system is dubious, the authors believe. And even if such a system were preserved, they write, it should be based on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth. Sex designations on birth certificates, it is argued, offer no clinical utility; they serve only legalnot medicalgoals.

On social media, where theNEJMarticle hasattractednearly 6,000 (almost uniformly negative) comments, many readers expressed disbelief that such a piece would appear in the same storied academic journal known historically for definitive, groundbreaking scientific papers on such subjects asgeneral anaesthesia, thediscovery of platelets, and the clinical course ofAIDS. Im a pediatrician,wroteone Oregon-based doctor. The growth curves for male and female babies are notably different. Am I to just give up on tracking normal growth and development?

In apparent anticipation of such responses, theNEJMauthors write that moving [sex] designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificates public health function but could avoid harm. The term line of demarcation refers to a separator on birth certificates. Information above the line, such as name, sex, and date of birth, generally appears on certified copies of birth certificates and carries legal significance, whereas information below the line consists of medically irrelevant demographic information that typically is included only for purposes of compiling aggregated population statistics. In effect, the authors are urging that a persons biological sex be downgraded to the same secondary, below-the-line information category that includes, for instance, a childs race and the marital status of his or her parents.

While such arguments seem inconsistent with common sense (not to mention the daily diagnostic and treatment protocols employed by millions of doctors around the world), the fact that editors at such a prestigious journal asNEJMhave chosen to assign credence to these arguments leaves us no choice but to unpack them.

In 2001, a Consensus Study Report titledExploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?was approved by the governing board of the National Research Council. Based on input from 16 experts drawn from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, all chosen for their special competences on the subject matter, the authors of the book-length report concluded as follows:

Being male or female is an important basic human variable that affects health and illness throughout the life span. Differences in health and illness are influenced by individual genetic and physiological constitutions, as well as by an individuals interaction with environmental and experiential factors. The incidence and severity of diseases vary between the sexes and may be related to differences in exposures, routes of entry and the processing of a foreign agent, and cellular responses. Although in many cases these sex differences can be traced to the direct or indirect effects of hormones associated with reproduction, differences cannot be solely attributed to hormones. Therefore, sex should be considered when designing and analyzing studies in all areas and at all levels of biomedical and health-related research.

This conclusion is hardly controversial. Nor should it be: Until just a few years ago, even most transgender activists didnt claim that biological sex was a superficial construct that paled in comparison to self-asserted gender identity. Yet the authors still took care to support their conclusions with an abundance of academic citations. The material details the measurably different manner by which the average member of each sex responds to medical therapies and metabolizes nutrients. The report also covered sex differences in overall body size and composition, and the prevalence of obesity, osteoporosis, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. Coronary heart diseasewhich claims about 650,000 American lives every year, more than double the COVID-19 death tollis described as a disease that affects both sexes differently.

Not only is biological sex a clinically significant factor in medicine, in many cases it is among themostimportant factors that a patient presentseven putting aside such obvious examples as prostate and uterine cancer, which afflict only males or females respectively.

Lest one dismiss 2001-era research as ancient history, consider another review, published in theLancetjust four months ago under the titleSex and Gender: Modifiers of Health, Disease, and Medicine. The combination of all genetic and hormonal causes of sex differences [yield] two different biological systems in men and women that translate into differences in disease predisposition, manifestation, and response to treatment, the authors concluded. Therefore, sex is an important modifier of physiology and disease via genetic, epigenetic, and hormonal regulations. In addition to generally affirming the conclusions of the 2001 National Academy of Sciences review described above, the authors detail other afflictions with sexually distinct patterns that have been investigated during the intervening two decadesincluding Alzheimers disease, diabetes, influenza, pneumonia, chronic kidney and liver diseases, depression and suicide, and COVID-19. They state plainly that efforts to bring sex and gender into the mainstream of modern medical research, practice, and education are urgently needed, as the lack of appreciation for sex and gender differences harms both women and men.

So given this baseline of widely accepted medical knowledge about the important differences between the biologically male and female populations, why didNEJMpublishFailed AssignmentsRethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates?

To help answer that question, consider the case of another misleading article: Lise Eliots appreciative NaturereviewofThe Gendered Brain, a 2019 book by Gina Rippon that inaccurately claimed observed sex differences in the brains of males and females are largely a myth that reflects neurosexist bigotry. In a publishedresponseto Eliots credulous take on Rippons book, several experts remindedNatures readers that a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatment When properly documented and studied, sex and gender differences are the gateway to precision medicine.

Now consider the different social-media imprints of these twoNaturearticles, as quantified by the websiteAltmetric, which tracks the degree to which scientific literature is reported by news outlets, blogs, and social-media users. As the accompanying image shows, the attention paid to Eliots positive review of Rippons dubious book on Neurosexism dwarfed the sober and factual debunking of it by a ratio exceeding 50:1.

Indeed,Natures original Neurosexism piece immediately went viral on social media. It showed up in eight news outlets, five blogs, 6,543 tweets, 70 Facebook pages, and received mention on Wikipedia, Reddit, and three video sites. And why wouldnt it? The idea that there are no sex differences in human neuroanatomythat we are all blank slates, so to speak, and so any observable variation must be the result of cultural conditioning or sexist bigotryalways plays well in the lay media, as it accords well with the expansive progressive understanding of sexism. Meanwhile, the actual facts, boring as they may be to most social media usersthat a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions demonstrate robust differences between the sexes in their incidence, symptoms, progression and response to treatmentbarely received any notice whatsoever.

And here we get to what has changed in recent years. Historically, scientific journalists and publishers worked within a professional milieu in which, with few exceptions, the judgments that mattered most were those rendered by other experts. But thats now changed, thanks to social media. While the editors at such publications asNatureandNEJMmay be excellent scientists, they also have the same appetite for praise and acceptance as everyone else. And if social media is telling them that a certain kind of article will mark them as enlightened, surely that will affect their choice of what to publish.

Not to mention, their choice of what tounpublish. On November 17th,Nature Communicationspublished an article titledThe Association Between Early Career Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations and Junior Author Performance, whose peer-reviewed results challenged the fashionable idea that same-sex mentoring arrangements help younger women. Needless to say, Twitter erupted in fury, leading to a slew of revisions that editors hoped would mollify critics. But that didnt keep critics at bay. And so this week the article wasretractedentirely, with the editors abjectly pledging to now reflect on our editorial processes and strength[en] our determination in supporting diversity, equity and inclusion in research. Its hard not to read this as an admission that the publication will no longer even pretend to ignore ideological fashion in rendering its editorial judgments.

The revisions, and then retraction, were performed under the conceit thatNature Communicationseditors are simply rigorous scientistsrespondingto criticisms from readers [that] revolved around the validity of the conclusions in light of the available data, assumptions made and methodology used. But even if one were to take this claim at face value, its clear that such rigor seems to be applied on an ideologically selective basis: The November 17thNaturepaper was retracted despite being approved, in its multiple forms, by not one but two peer-review teamswhile theNEJMand similarly prestigious publications now publish articles about sex and gender that plainly defy basic biological principles of sexual dimorphism understood even by small children.

It is also unclear how (or if)NEJMeditors evaluated the broad claim that registering sex designations on birth certificates can be harmful for intersex and transgender peoplenot to mention the equally unproven argument that designating sex as male or female on birth certificates misleads people by falsely suggest[ing] that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not.

Sex is a function of multiple biologic processes with many resultant combinations, the authors write. About 1 in 5,000 people have intersex variations. As many as 1 in 100 people exhibit chimerism, mosaicism, or micromosaicism, conditions in which a persons cells may contain varying sex chromosomes, often unbeknownst to them. The biologic processes responsible for sex are incompletely defined, and there is no universally accepted test for determining sex.

As a biologist, I understand the terms that are being used here. But as a journalist, I get the sense that the authors primary goal is to overwhelm readers with specialized language that suggests an individuals sex is the output of some complex equation (or, as the authors put it, a function of multiple biologic processes). Such language disguises the plain fact that sex is definedfunctionallybased on the type of gamete (sex cell) that forms the basis for an individuals reproductive anatomy. Males comprise the sex that produces small, motile sex cells (sperm); while females comprise the sex that produces large, sessile sex cells (ova). It doesnt matter whether any individual can actually, or eventually does, produce gametes. An individual human beings sex is determined by their primary sex organs, and an individuals sex is accurately recorded over99.98 percentof the time using genitals as a proxy for underlying gonad type.

Intersex conditions, whereby a person may have ambiguous genitalia or a mismatch between sex chromosomes and external phenotype, are real but extremely rare. And they do not result in a third sex. Nor do they demonstrate the existence of some mythical sex spectrum (notwithstanding several science journalists efforts topretend as much), given that there is no gamete that exists between sperm and ova for ones anatomy to produce (or be structured to produce). Furthermore, while those with chimerism, mosaicism, or micromosaicism may exhibit variation in sex-chromosome composition on a cell-by-cell basis, every specialist (including those who wrote theNEJMarticle) knows full well that it is anorganismthat has a sex, not its constituent cells. The vast majority of people with the above-listed conditions do not exhibit ambiguous sexual characteristics; they are clearly male or female.

TheNEJMauthors state that sex designations on birth certificates are harmful to people with intersex conditions because the requirement to pick M or F may serve to increase pressure on parents of intersex infants to pursue surgeries designed to alter a childs genitals so as to make them appear more typically male or female. While I share the belief that surgeries on intersex infants should be withheld until patients can give proper consent, and that nobody should be pressured into unwanted surgery, birth certificates are not the culprit here. Rather, what needs to be reconsidered is the societal notion that there is only one narrow way for biological males and biological females to look. (Indeed, the authors themselves seem to be exhibiting just such a regressive attitude, as their analysis implicitly rests on the assumption that intersex men and women are not fully male or female, a claim that many intersex people themselves might vigorously and properly reject.)

As for individuals who identify as transgender, their biological sex is typically not in any way ambiguous. A trans person is someone who is male or female, but who self-identifies as someone of the opposite sexwhich, of course, theyre free to do, but which does nothing in and of itself to change their underlying biology.

In regard to trans individuals, theNEJMauthors write:

Assigning sex at birth also doesnt capture the diversity of peoples experiences. About 6 in 1,000 people identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity doesnt match the sex they were assigned at birth. Others are nonbinary, meaning they dont exclusively identify as a man or a woman, or gender nonconforming, meaning their behavior or appearance doesnt align with social expectations for their assigned sex.

While I have no reason to dispute the statistics cited here, it is stunning that this kind of logic would be featured in a scientific journal. Identityincluding gender identityis a socially constructed phenomenon that says nothing about ones biological sex. And while it has always been known that some individuals are affected by gender dysphoria, the idea that biology shall be superseded by self-conceived gender identitynot only in the social and legal spheres, but also in some quasi-scientific senseis a novel claim that would have seemed bizarre to everyone (including trans activists themselves) just a few years ago. Twitter and Tumblr are full of people who insist on the truth of this claim, of course. But they generally do so as activists and moralistsnot as scientists.

TheNEJMauthors claim that trans people are harmed when theyre not allowed to use public spaces according to their self-identified sex, as opposed to their actual biological sex. On this point, the authors arent breaking any new ground, but are simply weighing in on an ongoing debate between those who prioritize the desires of trans people (women, in particular), and the hard-won rights of biological women who seek to keep male bodies out of vulnerable female spaces, including locker rooms, prisons, and rape-crisis centers. There is a real good-faith debate to be had about where the rights of one group begin and the rights of the other end, but it has nothing to do with birth certificates, and the authors dont seem to have any special insight into its resolution. Nor do they grapple substantively with countervailing arguments rooted in biological reality, summarized well by Callie Burt, associate professor of criminology at Georgia State University, in a recently published articled in the journalFeminist Criminology:

Womens sex-based provisions have been instituted and maintained to mitigate historical and ongoing social disadvantages (e.g., support for women/girls, quotas, and awards and competitions) and to provide female spaces free of the threat of male violence, sexual harassment and objectification to facilitate womens equal involvement in public life. Some provisions (e.g., female awards and quotas) are designed to overcome social disadvantages rooted in historical exclusion, while other provisions, such as sports and female reproductive control, are sex separated due to biological differences (male physiological advantages and female reproductive burden, respectively) and justified by the individual and social benefits of female social involvement such provisions facilitate (Coleman, 2017). In general, sex-based provisions continue to be crucial to females well-being and equal participation in society, facilitating privacy, equal opportunity, and dignity in a world where male people have long been hostile and exclusionary to female people (e.g., Lawford-Smith, 2019a).

What Prof. Burt is describing here are the rights won by generations of women, often at great personal cost, in defiance of patriarchal societies that organized their power hierarchies around the real and timeless biological reality of sexual dimorphism. And its been distressing to see how easily many progressive thinkers, including some scientists, have been convinced that this biological reality can be airily dismissed as a mirage.

Even Titania McGrath could scarcely have known how quickly such ideological fads would metastasize into medical literature. And it should be a source of shame for the editors of theNEJMthat todays published content now reads as a plagiarized rehash of yesterdays farce.

Colin Wright is the Managing Editor ofQuillette.He holds a PhD in evolutionary biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Follow him on Twitter at@SwipeWright

A version of this article was originally posted at Quillette and has been reposted here with permission. Find Quillette on Twitter @Quillette

See the original post here:

Viewpoint on sex and gender: Has the New England Journal abandoned science for woke political correctness? - Genetic Literacy Project

SALT LAKE CITY Utah School Board member Natalie J. Cline has been at the center of many discussions this week about race, inclusion and what should and shouldnt be taught in Utah schools.

A post by the board member regarding a presentation at a Utah Pride Center conference sparked outrage and many called that post and others homophobic and racist.

Read: Utah Board of Education member accused of 'homophobic, racist' comments

"Murray educators presented last Saturday at the Utah Pride Center Conference for educators. Learn more about what they are doing to indoctrinate your children here" she wrote, in her post with the video link.

Emails and phone calls in support and against Cline have been pouring in, board member Cindy Davis said at the beginning of Thursdays meeting.

Please to all of you, we see you and we hear you, but we have zero legal authority to do either. I repeat, we have zero legal authority to remove or retain a board member, Davis said.

During public comment people on both sides spoke up. One mother said she wants education to be free of moral and political discussions, showing her support for Cline.

I am also concerned about the vicious attack on school board member Natalie Cline. America is a place where diversity of thought used to be accepted but is now rejected through the cancel culture mob. Natalies views are no different than many Utah parents, she said.

Another mother spoke up, asking the board to stay in their lane when it comes to curriculum.

Schools need to be neutral in the classrooms concerning racial issues, politics, morals, values, sexuality and gender programming. These topics and issues are polarizing, and they are fueling more societal and cultural division and hate when they are taught inside the schools, she said.

Read: Utah Pride conference teaches schools how to be LGTBQIA friendly

Two members of the Utah Pride Center spoke of the dangers of Clines comments. Rob Moolman challenged the board, asking why people are afraid of these topics.

It is not political correctness gone wild, it is not cancel culture. It is kindness, it is compassion, and it is understanding. It is being human, he said.

The chairman of the Utah Pride Center asked Cline to take down her comments and apologize, noting he believes the toxic narrative is putting LGBTQ+ students' lives at risk.

As a public official, Ms. Clines primary responsibility is to ensure our schools are safe and welcoming to all students. Her recent comments are only an abdication of her duties, but they also put queer students at risk of bullying, harassment and mental anguish, he said.

The Utah State Board of Education does not have the power to remove Cline, Davis said. However, there is an online petition with more than seven thousand signatures calling for Clines removal or for her to resign.

The rest is here:

Utah State Board of Education meeting dominated by board member controversy - fox13now.com

The Record readers| St. Augustine RecordBad comparison

I must take issue with the recent letter criticizing U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio for not condemning the protest at the Capitol. First of all, comparing the protest at the Capitol to the overthrowing of the Cuban government is wrong. There is no comparison whatsoever. Marco Rubio was not alive when this occurred.

This letter looks like a regurgitation of a recent George Stephanopoulos interview with Rand Paul where Stephanopoulos tried to get U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to admit that Joe Biden legitimately won the election. How about getting the Democratic Party to admit the riots, destruction, and violence that took place during 2020 were wrong? We all saw video of Jerry Nadler stating that the involvement of Antifa in Portland riots was a myth. Why can he not admit that just isnt so? American cities saw fires, riots and destruction, and the Democratic Party seems just fine with that.

John Hamilton,

St. Augustine

More: How the antifa conspiracy theory traveled from the fringe to the floor of Congress

We now live in a country of taking down statues and renaming our schools that bear the name of our founding fathers because they might offend some people in the name of political correctness.

But wait: We cant stop there. We are now trying to silence people and boycott their businesses because they voted or endorsed a political party other than their own.

Case in point: Mike Lindell, founder of his company "My Pillow," created hundreds of good-paying jobs within his company. Lindell, a strong supporter of President Trump, is now facing backlash by having his products banned from some retail stores.

My Pillow CEO is now banned from Twitter

Twitter banned My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Buzz60

Whats next? In some countries if you speak against the party that is in power you start as a political opponent and you may end up as a political prisoner.

Ed Trester,

St. Augustine Beach

View original post here:

In defense of Marco Rubio and 'My Pillow' CEO Mike Lindell, both attacked by the left - St. Augustine Record

Deep in the heart of Texas, above an oil patch about the size of Kansas, a little team in a small plane is trying to reveal a big problem.

They are methane hunters. With an infrared camera and a Picarro Cavity Ring-Down Laser Spectroscope, they fly spirals over pumps and compressor stations that stretch to both horizons. With each tight corkscrew, the little airplane sniffs out and measures planet-cooking, climate-changing pollution as the region below braces for an energy revolution amid a cold civil war.

The Picarro spectrometer is so sensitive, it caught the number of carbon dioxide molecules in my breath as we walked around the hangar. In the sky, it counts the density of carbon dioxide molecules on their way to heating up the sea, land and sky for the next 300 to 1,000 years.

More importantly, it also measures methane, which is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the next 20 years. You know it better as natural gas. Heating and cooking are not the only methane culprits. Two-thirds of emissions come from belching cows, factory farms and rotting landfills. But as any Texan will tell you, it's a lot easier to control gas coming out of the ground than gas coming out of cows.

The "greenhouse effect" was discovered before women could vote (by a suffragist, in fact) but in 2021, the indoor gardening metaphor doesn't match the emergency. Instead, imagine a baby in a hot car. Carbon dioxide is like the steel and glass holding in the sun's rays as they bounce through the windshield. Methane provides the equivalent of cranking up the heater inside the car; it works much faster but is easier to control in the long term. Planet Earth, of course, is the baby.

Without the tools of a methane hunter, you can't see or smell natural gas but virtually all of Earth's peer-reviewed scientists agree that for life on Earth to survive with any semblance of today, it must go the way of the dodo along with coal and oil. Climatologists at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tell us that deadly changes will only get worse until people stop using fuels that burn and leak.

But in Texas, methane is so plentiful and cheap, it escaped largely unseen and unmeasured until both the Environmental Defense Fund and oil producers started using tools like the Picarro spectrometer. Scientific Aviation, based in Boulder, Colorado, owns this one and will sniff the sky for all kinds of customers, but only the EDF makes the data public.

"What we found here in the Permian Basin is that operators are wasting enough gas to heat about 2 million homes a year," says Kelsey Robinson, project manager for the EDF's PermianMAP Project.

Sometimes the methane leaks from faulty equipment or the tens of thousands of orphaned wells. Sometimes, when there is no one to buy it, they just burn it in a practice called flaring. Former President Donald Trump tried to remove all regulations on methane, a move so extreme that even ExxonMobil opposed it. But until President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agency can navigate the legal booby traps left by the Trump administration's giveaways to methane leakers, it is up to oil and gas companies to fix a problem no one can see or smell.

"We found that the Permian Basin is emitting more than double any other oil and gas region in the United States," Robinson said.

Named after Earth's biggest mass extinction event, the Permian Basin is so flat you'd swear you can see the curvature of Earth standing in the bed of a pickup. When oily, gassy, flammable proof of the Great Dying the nickname given to the mass-extinction event that marked the end of the Permian geologic period was found under the red dirt, Midland and Odessa grew into the vena cava of the state's oil industry, the setting for "Friday Night Lights" and the perfect place for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to fire the first shot in a methane civil war of 2021.

"I'm in Midland to make clear that Texas is going to protect the oil and gas industry from any type of hostile attack launched from Washington, DC," Abbott said, days after Biden signed his first round of executive orders aimed at a climate in crisis.

Then the Republican governor signed an executive order of his own, commanding every state agency to bring him every reason to sue and stop the Biden administration's clean energy efforts. In calling out cities like San Francisco, where a movement to ban natural gas heaters and appliances from new construction is growing, Abbott vowed to ban all bans.

"In Texas, we will not let cities use political correctness to dictate what energy source you use," he said. "So I am supporting legislation that prohibits cities and counties from banning natural gas appliances."

But as a sign of the changing times, Abbott's fierce opposition to the Paris Accord puts him at odds with the statements and soundbites of Big Oil's biggest lobbyist.

"We think the threat of climate change is very real," Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API), told CNN. "We support both industry actions and actions by the federal government in the United States and around the globe to address this very important issue that we know is existential in nature."

As more European energy companies embrace a green transition, France's Total became the first oil giant to tear up its API membership, citing differences over a carbon tax, electric car subsidies and ... methane. In October, the French government stepped in to block a $7 billion deal, deciding that liquified natural gas from Texas is too dirty for their standards.

But Sommers says the API is willing to work with the Biden administration on regulating new and existing sources of methane.

As for Biden being an existential threat to oil and gas, Sommers seems less worried and argues that there is no need to transition them to geothermal, solar or wind because the world will demand fuels that burn and leak for generations.

"This industry provides about 60% of the world's energy today," he said. "And the trend there is going to be a transition in energy. But I'm also confident that this industry is going to be around for a long time."

To fix the methane problem, he argues that if America only had more pipelines, industry wouldn't have to needlessly burn so much natural gas.

"I think the biggest challenge that we have from an emissions perspective, honestly, is getting our infrastructure right," Sommers said. "We need to make sure that we have pipelines in place to get these products to market as quickly as possible. And what that means is we need a regulatory structure that allows these pipelines to be built."

Kelsey Robinson of the EDF has a simpler idea. "Reducing methane emissions is actually a job creator in and of itself because we need people to go out to survey these sites and then take steps to fix those leaks."

"It doesn't make sense to burn it," said Texas state geologist Scott Tinker as we stroll the elaborate rock garden map of Texas outside his office. "They don't have the gathering systems to collect it. So rather than leaking the methane, they burn it and leak CO2. CO2 is better as a product than methane if you're going to put something into the atmosphere. But it'd be much better to gather it."

After the 2008 recession, Tinker says the fracking boom caught West Texas by surprise. Years of oil field decline saw a renaissance when the new method of injecting water into shale doubled oil production and created gushers of invisible methane with no way to catch it.

"The conversation is shifting," Tinker says, after public and stockholder pressure. "It's happening, but it's slow, takes a lot of money, takes approval for the pipelines. It takes an industry and a regulatory system that caused that to happen in the first place."

Sommers insists that his API members are taking the problem seriously, with 70% of onshore producers joining the Environmental Partnership, which is all about reducing methane emissions within the oil and gas industry, he said.

"It brings together producers, large and small, to share technology and to share best practices on how to reduce methane emissions," he said. "And it's working."

But far beyond the methane problem, the only way to save both life on Earth and the fossil fuel industry is to rabidly develop carbon capture and storage technology on a mind-boggling scale. This would require sophisticated, expensive methane catchers to be built around the smokestacks of every petrochemical works, power plant and steel mill in the world.

Hopes for such a miracle fix took a major setback this week, when the Petra Nova plant outside of Houston shut down indefinitely. Backed by a $190 million grant from the Department of Energy, the four-year plant set out to capture 90% of the carbon dioxide pumping out of a 240-megawatt, coal-fired power plant. It was the only major carbon-capture project in the U.S. after a $7.5 billion project in Mississippi was shuttered before ever going online.

Exxon Mobil says they are working on 20 new carbon capture projects around the world, including one in Texas, as part of a new $3 billion investment in a business they call ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions.

But Robinson and her flying methane hunters have heard promises before. Without enforceable regulations for producers big and small, she says profit motive almost always wins.

"ExxonMobil and some of the other big producers have set some pretty lofty goals for how they want to keep their emissions," Robinson said. "But we found that here in the Permian Basin, the methane leak rate is over 10 times higher than what a lot of companies have set out to do."

In the meantime, she says she'll keep her little team flying, sniffing and measuring methane while the airplane will soon have some high-altitude backup. After a $100 million grant from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' Earth Fund, the EDF will soon launch their own methane-hunting satellite.

Read more from the original source:

An invisible, odorless gas is pitting Texas against the Biden administration - Action News Now

Soon after he was declared winner of the 2020 presidential election by the Associated Press last November, Joe Biden called on the American people to start closing the Donald Trump chapter as a nightmare and move on.

The concept of closing a chapter and moving on has always been an important part of American political discourse. From its earliest days, the United States developed a positivist political culture that ejected the nurturing of ressentiment so dear to old European powers. That culture regarded concepts as vendetta and revanchisme, so strong in the old continent, with contempt. Even after the War of Secession, a tragic event by any standard, that culture helped Americans of all political shades to move on and, in time, get together again.

One only has to read what Gen. Ulysses S Grant, commander in chief of the unionists who led his camp to victory, has to say in praise of the defeated Gen. Robert E Lee, the confederal commander to realize that American political culture is not only remarkably free of vengefulness but also promotes forgiveness in the service of the common interest. The American is advised not to get mad but get even.

Thus when Biden spoke of moving on he was following a well-established American pattern of behavior. With that in mind, one cannot but wonder why his Democrat Party decided to keep the Trump chapter open by triggering a second impeachment process that seems to have no constitutional basis and everyone knows will not end with the conviction of the former president. This impeachment gambit simply doesnt make sense.

If one wishes to punish Trump for his alleged triggering of the mob attack on Capitol last month, the American way would be for the Washington DC Police Department to shape a case for submission to the District Attorney to bring formal legal charges against Trump. In that way, the whole tug would be depoliticized with Trump facing criminal charges and becoming answerable to an independent judiciary with clear and time-tested rules.

So, why this stubborn insistence on shielding Trump against the legal process while casting him as the negative star of a poorly-scripted soap opera?

Adepts of conspiratorial theories might suggest that Trump himself bribed some Democrat leaders to launch the show and keep him in the news for as long as possible. As a result of the impeachment process, rather than fading in Florida has remained in the headlines with his every move massively reported and analyzed as if the fate of mankind depended on them. Nursing an insatiable thirst for publicity, old Donald J. must be having a whale of a time watching TV in Mare de Lago.

However, a more sinister motive may also be suggested. What if this whole farce is part of a broader attempt at injecting a strong dose of revisionist vengefulness in the American political culture?

Judging by various campaigns to remove statues, re-name public places by banning even such names George Washington; Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, would it be outlandish to fear that vendetta, justified by real or imaginary grievances, is creeping into American politics at a higher and higher level?

For the past decade or so, victim-hood has provided some individuals and groups with a store-front display to seek a share in the political marketplace. There is also the fact that segments of the American political elite, drunk on their cocktail of political correctness, seek to re-write American history as a tale of woes for real or imagined victims. Keeping real or imagined wounds open is also a means of covering ones political nakedness. It is interesting that the politically correct crowd has never been able to offer anything resembling a coherent political platform beyond calling for the insurgency against the one percent who are supposed to have a magic money tree in their back garden.

Deeper thinkers in that crowd demand a defunding of the police and the creation of free zones in cities where freedom-fighters keep White Supremacists out. Trump, being the bete-noire of anti-Imperialist and Progressive militants, it is no surprise that they insist on getting the pound of flesh they have no claim to.

But what if the Democrat barons, or at least some of them, have pedestrian partisan motives?

The impeachment helped Biden complete approval of his Cabinet at top speed, avoiding long and potentially damaging scrutiny of some nominees. It also covered the fact that the new president hasnt offered anything sensationally new apart from canceling some of Trumps controversial Executive Orders.

Beyond that, the impeachment may be designed to keep Trump politically alive by angering and thus further motivating his core supporters who would either split the Republican Party from within or even set up their own Patriot Party. Such a split would ensure the Democrats victory in mid-term elections next year. Since more Republican senators will face re-election next year, such a split could give Democrats a huge senate majority, something they havent had in decades. Some Republican senators may lose part of their electorate if they oppose the impeachment. Others may lose voters if they support it.

And then, we would be en-route for presidential election in 2040 which, Biden an unlikely come-back-kid, would be an open on. Fielding Kamala Harris as nominee could be risky by Democrats. At the same time, Democrats lack a rising star while a challenger further on their left remains a threat.

On the Republican side, Trump may seek the partys nomination.

If he wins, Democrats could mobilize the same coalition of minorities against him while a big chunk of Republican voters either stays at home or, like last November, join the anti-Trump front. If Trump doesnt win the nomination he would be under pressure to stand as a third party candidate.

That could mean re-visiting the Ross Perot episode which helped Bill Clinton become president twice, both times by fewer than 40 percent of the votes.

Trump as a diversion may have other uses for Democrats. There is talk of turning DC into a state, something which could give the democrats two more senate seats. Biden has also spoken of the possibility of Puerto Rico becoming a state. If that happens, Democrats could control both houses for the foreseeable future. Even more outlandish is the suggested division of California into two or even four states which would give Democrats between two and eight more senate seats.

Could the two-party system develop into a one-and-a-half party scheme in which the one party is always in government and the half-party always in opposition?

Thats what happened in neighboring Mexico where the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was in power from 1920 to 2000 with a half party serving as opposition to keep the myth of democracy alive.

Were that to happen, we would witness one of those ironies that give history its bitter-sweet taste. Mexicans fought for two centuries to have a democracy like that of their northern neighbor, never dreaming that anyone north of Rio Grande may wish to Mexicanize the American system.

Here is the original post:

The Mysteries of the Trump Impeachment Remake - Asharq Al-awsat - English