Finnish operator Elisa has announced the winners of the 2020 Finnish Books of the Year award, run by its Elisa Kirja e-book arm. Elisa had chosen a list of titles for the public to vote from. The exception was the newcomer category, in which Elisa Kirja itself picked the winner.
In the fiction category, the winner was Tommi Kinnunen’s “Defiance”. In the Information/biography category, the winner was Jari Tervo for his book about actor Veta-Matti Loiri. The winner of the crime category was Lenna Lehtolainen for “The Ripple Effect”. In the audiobook category, the winner was actor and author Ville Tiihonen. Elina Backman was named best newcomer for “When the King Dies”.
“There is no television, newspaper or radio. There is paper, pen, one book and the voices of comrades coming from the air well and hall. Sleeping for six hours, I try to spend the remaining 18 hours in the best way possible with my means. If I read more than 100 pages a day, I finish my book before I have to return it. Today’s war is about trying to read less.
“There are several things that remind one of modern life. Warm water flowing from the faucet 24/7 and electrically powered water heater…
“On the second day of my imprisonment, I caught myself dreaming of a vacuum cleaner to remove the spider’s webs on the wall. Then, I have forbidden myself from having small dreams.”
Discharged from public service by a Statutory Decree, academic Nuriye Gülmen has shared her story of arrest with bianet.
This letter, in fact, left her prison cell five days after she was arrested on August 11; however, it was brought back to her prison cell without any reasons. The letter could reach bianet a month later.
Nuriye Gülmen says, “I know that these attempts of terrorization, these imprisonments will pass. What will remain is our struggle that we have woven together in blood, sweat and tears and that we have been keeping up inside and outside and under any circumstances.”
She ends her letter in following words: “Don’t forget me. I am waiting for your friendly greetings and letters.”
Nuriye Gülmen was taken into custody on August 5 in the İdil Cultural Center, where Grup Yorum music band has been conducting its activities in İstanbul. Held in detention for seven days, Gülmen was arrested. She is now in Silivri No. 9 Prison at the outskirts of the city.
Referring to her detention in the İdil Cultural Center, Gülmen says, “The fact that we were taken into custody and arrested just because we were in a cultural center any day will come as no surprise to anyone who -more or less- keeps up with the political developments in Turkey.”
Gülmen also adds in her letter: “One does not help thinking that if I had left the İdil Cultural Center 10 minutes earlier, I would be now moving on with my ordinary life. In fact, my ordinary life is full of extraordinary things brought about by the system. If I had managed to leave the İdil Cultural Center on August 5, I would have first attended the press statement to be held for my dear attorneys Ebru Timtik and Aytaç Ünsal, then I would have paid the visits that I could not during the feast and I would have gone to see one of the families of Çorlu Train massacre.
“At night, I would have welcomed Şerif Mesutoğlu’s dear wife Saime, who came from Mardin for the justice watch that we would keep in front of the Çağlayan Courthouse the next day. My ordinary life was interrupted by special operations police who came up against me with long-barreled weapons in their hands and called on me to ‘lie on the ground’.”
‘Why am I in detention?’
During her interrogation at court, the first question the judge asked her was why she was in the İdil Cultural Center:
“It can be said that it was a good first question to be asked to a person who had been detained because she was in a cultural center. But, actually, it is not. The right question should be this:
“Why was I detained with weapons pointed to my face, forced to lie on the ground and dragged on the floor by special operations police and why do I now have to explain my reasons for being in a legal institution?
“Because the political police saw it fit to do it. Because they saw it fit to raid the institution as ‘some wanted persons might have been there’, ‘some ammunition was possibly there’ and ‘a call was made for a banned concert.’
“I think the political police themselves would admit that it was a bad plot. They do not need a good plot after all. They write the script themselves and perform it themselves anyway and they have several channels that are eagerly waiting for this play and would cover it with pleasure.
“The ammunition and the wanted persons could not be found in the end. The preparations for the banned concert were ongoing at full pace. Then, why am I in detention?”
‘They have both the test booklet and answer key’
During the interrogation, Gülmen talked about “the Resistances Assembly, how it was founded and ‘We Demand Justice’ Platform.” She said that she was in the İdil Cultural Center for an interview before the Grup Yorum concert and the preparation for a radio program:
“Then the past was raked up. The irrational allegation that I staged a hunger strike upon the instruction of the organization and ended it in the same way…. The familiar question of ‘men’ in official clothes and gowns who do not know what it means to reject food for the sake of a demand and have probably never been hungry in their lives…
“I do not know for how many times I said that it was not possible to go hungry upon instruction and talked about my own experience with hunger.
“When the question is wrong, the answer cannot be right no matter which option you choose. Because both the test booklet and answer key are in their hands. The interrogation ended and I was arrested due to flight risk abroad…” (AS/SD)
The faces of doctors treating patients infected with COVID-19 are marked by goggles, longing for loved ones and hope for victory. One of those doctors is Ana Coeva, a paediatrician at the Emilian Coțaga Children’s Hospital in the Republic of Moldova.
What preoccupies Ana the most is being away from her family – particularly her five-year-old daughter, whom she has chosen not to see for the last month out of fear of infecting her, while she continues to work at the hospital.
“I am grateful that my daughter can stay with her grandparents so I do not risk infecting her with the coronavirus. Her grandmother is very patient, explaining the situation and answering questions – of which there are many: ‘Where is my mother? What is my mother doing? Why isn’t she visiting?’ – but I try to stay in touch online as much as possible. I miss my family dearly.
“I want the people to truly understand the gravity of the situation and to act responsibly. Health care workers risk their own health by going to work. By respecting national health measures, the general population can help significantly,” she explains.
In her early thirties, Ana has four years of experience in the public health system. In the last month she has been wearing protective overalls while providing daily assistance to children suspected of having or confirmed to have COVID-19.
“My work has changed significantly, one important new factor being the low predictability of the disease evolution, the other being the personal protective equipment and the physical distancing measures we need to take.
“Although effective, the protective equipment we wear when treating patients is uncomfortable. It is painful from the moment you put it on, and by the time you take it off, you have marks on the skin left by the goggles. Because we also care for newborns, one-to-two months old, the room must be kept warm, which makes wearing protective overalls even more burdensome. It feels like being in a sauna.
“I am willing to take the risk of treating COVID-19 patients because I cannot turn my back on children who are sick. Like my colleagues, I am determined to provide care to all who need it.
“When we first choose to study medicine, we may not always know what awaits us. I don’t come from a family of doctors who could have helped me prepare for the realities of practicing, but along the way I have come to realize that I could not have chosen any other path for myself.”
WHO collaborated closely with national experts to train paediatricians like Ana in the management of COVID-19 cases among children. Health care professionals were trained in oxygen therapy, chronic lung disease and asthma, management of long-term cough and fever, rehydration methods, psychomotor health and stress management in children and parents, supportive care, and monitoring of condition and deterioration signs in the context of COVID-19. Training modules included simulation exercises on mannequins for remote practice of essential crisis management interventions.
PUBLISHED: 12:19 12 October 2020 | UPDATED: 12:19 12 October 2020
<p class="byline">
<a class="email" href="mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow"> <!-- Author Start -->Bridget Galton<!-- Author End -->
</a> </p>
<div class="image article-image standard-image-630 gallery" readability="31">
<div> </div>
<div class="article-image-info" readability="32">
<p class="article-image-caption">Sam Devami and James Hutchinson launch Readr - a new subscription book service.</p>
<p class="article-image-copyright">Archant</p>
</div>
</div>
<!--PSTYLE=SF Web Summary--><h2>James and Sam’s Readr mails out a monthly paperback to subscribers then holds a virtual book club to discuss it </h2>
<!-- Article Start -->
<div id="1.6879483" class="object-465"> <em>James Hutchinson and Sam Devami launch Readr - a new subscription book service.</em></div>Two childhood friends have started a book club and subscription service to encourage people who don’t read to get into the habit.
Twenty years after they became pals at primary school, James Hutchinson and Sam Davami have launched Readr together – coming up with the idea during lockdown.
Sam, an ex primary teacher who now works in management consultancy, and advertising exec James both noticed they had developed a passion for reading in their 20s.
“We had a similar experience,” says James who lives in Kentish Town. “We didn’t do much reading when we were younger but we independently started to read more and more over time and realised it had become a big part of our lives.”
After getting into book clubs, Holloway resident Sam felt it was “a shame that people find it hard to get started”.
“We thought it would be nice if people got into it too and wondered how to get the ball rolling.”
Thinking of his own experience of wishing he had read more books, James could see many felt the same way but asked “what are the barriers to that?”
Their idea was to curate a subscription service, mailing out one paperback a month then inviting members to a virtual book club to discuss it.
<!-- Start Config > Contextual Article Video Code - includes targetted ad option for RFC 3031 -->
You may also want to watch:
<!-- JWPlayer CAM: End Config > Contextual Article Video Code -->“A bit like Netflix there’s so much choice it’s daunting,” says James.
“We wanted something as simple as possible to share recommendations and make it manageable and fun. For those who read already it could diversify their bookshelf.
Launched in August, the feedback been “really enthusiastic” with members signing up from as far afield as Sweden and Holland.
The first two titles Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger and Brit Bennett’s The Mothers have gone down well and they have future plans for a range of international authors and contemporary and classic titles.
“We want to bring people brilliant books from different genres they might not try themselves and make reading a habit to build into their life,” says James.
“We hope to create a community of people who are passionate about reading because doing it as a group is encouraging.”
Sam adds: “The first book club was a success, with many saying it was not a book they would have picked themselves but they loved it. For some it was the first book they had read in years.
“People seem to love having a book to hold that’s delivered to their door, there’s something exciting about having something to unwrap”.
They have kept the monthly fee “affordable” and with their first 100 members already signed up, James pledges to “see where it takes us.”
The monthly subscription is £8.99 but Readr are currently offering 50 percent off the first three months membership with the code READRPROMO
<!-- Start Generic PressPatron HTML Element 0952 07/08/2020, ID 7.1100329 -->
<
p class=”HasContent”>If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Islington Gazette. Click the link in the orange box above for details.
Chineme Noke, African-British Lawyer, Coach and Author, Included in the Largest Book Ever on Entrepreneurial Habits – Book Publishing Industry Today – EIN Presswire
A member of the European Parliament has appeared in court in Greece after being convicted of being a leading member of a criminal organisation along with members of the far-right Golden Dawn party.
Ioannis Lagos, who faces up to 15 years in prison, travelled from Brussels to Athens to attend the sentencing hearings. He made a formal request for the three judges trying the case to be replaced.
Lagos told the court: “I believe that there is a prevailing bias against the defendants and that the judges involved in the case came under direct and indirect pressure from the political establishment.”
Lagos faces five to 15 years in prison (AP/Thanassis Stavrakis)“/>Lagos faces five to 15 years in prison (AP/Thanassis Stavrakis)
Lagos and 17 other former Greek parliament members from Golden Dawn were convicted last week of leading a criminal organisation, or simple membership, and face sentences of between five and 15 years in prison.
Dozens of other Golden Dawn members and associates were also convicted of numerous offences, from murder and violent assaults against immigrants to perjury.
Presiding judge Maria Lepenioti said mitigating circumstances would be granted to four former MPs and 10 other convicted members on grounds of age, expressions of remorse, and lack of prior convictions. Leniency was not recognised for Lagos or six other former parliament members considered to be leaders of the organisation.
Golden Dawn was founded as a Neo-Nazi group in the 1980s but saw a surge in popularity during the recent financial crisis, gaining parliamentary representation between 2012 and 2019.
The five-year trial was launched following the 2013 murder of rap singer and left-wing activist Pavlos Fyssas, who was stabbed to death by a Golden Dawn supporter.
Hundreds of protesters, many from left-wing groups and labour unions, gathered outside the court and chanted “smash the fascists in every neighbourhood”.
Police banned a rally planned by supporters of Golden Dawn. Sentences are expected to be announced later on Monday unless the judges are replaced.
Ryanair called on all EU Govts to adopt the EU “Traffic Light” System without delay, following the EU Council meeting in Brussels on 13 Oct next. Under the new “Traffic Light” System, the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) confirmed it is safe to travel to 15 EU countries without any travel restrictions.
Europe’s aviation and tourism industries cannot suffer any delay to the adoption of this new system, as millions of jobs are at risk as Europe moves into a very difficult winter season. This common EU framework will help restore confidence in air travel and end the contradictory different national policies across Europe that have damaged customer demand.
The new EU ‘Traffic Light’ System allows safe travel to/from 15 countries listed as ‘green’ and ‘amber’ with no restrictions. For 15 ‘red’-list countries, there may be restrictions in place (e.g testing pre-departure/on arrival). The new “Traffic Light” System also recommends that member states apply a regional approach where possible to ensure regions or islands with low levels of Covid are not penalised.
Health experts – including the WHO & the ECDC – confirm that quarantines don’t work, and air travel represents minimal risk for the spread of the virus. In fact, Ryanair has carried over 16.5m passengers this summer with zero inflight transmissions. The adoption of the EU ‘Traffic Light’ System will allow families to re-unite and businesses to thrive, as the world recovers from the Covid-19 crisis.
Ryanair’s CEO Eddie Wilson said: “We urge all EU Govts to adopt the EU “Traffic Light” System without delay. Europe’s aviation and tourism industries cannot afford further job losses, and until a vaccine is available, we must learn to live with the virus.
The implementation of this coordinated regional approach will help restore consumer confidence ahead of a difficult winter season, and also allow all airlines plan for Summer 2021, with millions of jobs dependent on the recovery of our aviation and tourism sectors.
As confirmed by the WHO, aviation is not responsible for an increase in EU Covid rates and quarantines simply don’t work. EU Govts need to act fast and implement the EU “Traffic Light” System immediately following next week’s Council meeting and give Europe’s tourism economies the relief that’s much needed”.
<aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-1" data-section="0" readability="0.94017094017094">
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module thanks para-one-thankyou" id="para-one-thankyou-365084" readability="0.84810126582278"><div class="emailetext-blocks thanks" readability="27.139240506329">
Thank you for signing up. For more from <em>The Nation</em>, check out our <a class="textred-highlighted" href="https://www.thenation.com/issue" rel="nofollow">latest issue</a>.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-2" data-section="1" readability="1"><div class="emailetext-blocks" readability="32">
Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!</p>
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-3" data-section="2" readability="1"><div class="emailetext-blocks" readability="32">
<h4>Support Progressive Journalism</h4>
The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-4" data-section="3" readability="0.94331983805668">
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module thanks para-one-thankyou" id="para-one-thankyou-365084" readability="0.84810126582278"><div class="emailetext-blocks thanks" readability="27.139240506329">
Thank you for signing up. For more from <em>The Nation</em>, check out our <a class="textred-highlighted" href="https://www.thenation.com/issue" rel="nofollow">latest issue</a>.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-5" data-section="4" readability="1.5"><div class="emailetext-blocks" readability="33">
<h4>Travel With <em>The Nation</em></h4>
Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-6" data-section="5"><div class="emailetext-blocks">
<h4>Sign up for our Wine Club today.</h4>
Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
</div>
</aside><p>Mariana Enriquez grew up on the wrong side of the Riachuelo, the poisoned, lifeless waterway that separates the city of Buenos Aires from the slums to its south. “Four million people without sewers or plumbing,” she tells us. The river’s proper name, Matanzas—“Slaughter”—derives from the slaughterhouses that operated along its banks for two centuries, their animal effluence mixing with industrial and human waste to poison the waters. Among Enriquez’s earliest memories is the river’s putrid smell, which would wake her up some mornings as a child. And she remembers the floods—only they’re worse now, and more frequent, with some neighborhoods flooding twice a month: “The kids go swimming in the streets as if they were pools—the rotten water no longer bothers them.”<aside class="ad right most-popular-plus-ad grey_back">
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/advertising-policy" class="ad-policy" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Ad Policy</a>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents related-newarticle author-modules book-module" readability="2.5"><h4>Books in Review</h4>
</aside>
Sulaiman Addonia is a refugee from Eritrea. As a child he survived war and a Sudanese refugee camp before escaping to London with his older brother, who was then only 17. Now he lives in Brussels, where he founded a writing academy for fellow refugees, helping them tell their stories. His partner is a climate activist from a middle-class white family. He used to tell her: “Saving the planet you destroyed is your fight and not mine.” But these days he thinks of his family back in Eritrea, one of the world’s poorest countries—“the scorching heat they faced, the failed harvests in the region, the decimated workforce,” and “the magnificent coral reefs,” on which so many lives depend, “dying off”—and he knows the climate is everyone’s fight.
Say their names. Mariana Enriquez and Sulaiman Addonia are but two of the contributors to Tales of Two Planets: Stories of Climate Change and Inequality in a Divided World, a new literary anthology edited by John Freeman. My descriptions come nowhere near doing justice to their stories and the power of their writing. You must read them and encounter their voices yourself—along with those of 34 other contributors, including Edwidge Danticat on Haiti, Mohammed Hanif on Pakistan, Anuradha Roy on India, and Ian Teh on China, to name just a few.
I’ll admit that this anthology brought back visceral sensations and emotions that I sometimes fear I’ve grown too numbed by my daily consumption of climate news to feel anymore. But there they were, my familiar companions: the old grief, the old rage. And, if I’m honest, the old despair that’s always lurking. There I am, reading this book on my comfy back porch in an affluent town west of Boston, feeling overwhelmed by my sense of complicity in unspeakable injustices against people, actual human beings, everywhere on Earth—and by my sense of powerlessness as an individual to stop any of it. I could tear down my solar-paneled house, live in a yurt, and convert my yard into an organic community garden, and it would make absolutely zero difference to the fates of billions whose names I’ll never know and can never say.
If I’ve learned anything over the past decade covering and engaging in the climate justice movement in this country—the same movement that has pushed the concept of, and varying proposals for, a Green New Deal to the very center of American politics—it’s that “solidarity” is complicated and often elusive. In movement circles, the word and concept of solidarity is all too often used casually, almost thoughtlessly, as if it’s a given that all of us fighting for climate justice are in solidarity with each other and with all of those, the vast majority in the Global South, who are on the front lines of climate catastrophe even now. We may believe this, and say it to ourselves and others, but most of the time it simply is not so. Or, at least, not so simple. At the global level, the only level at which humanity’s future can and will be decided, such solidarity is far from certain.
Because the idea of global solidarity—any genuine, human solidarity across borders, races, classes, and all the rest—is meaningless without effective action. That is, without action that has some chance of the desired and necessary effect, politically and economically and environmentally. And at the global level—if what one wants is climate justice—such action is eventually going to conflict with national and local priorities and politics. Even if the United States, despite the antidemocratic system standing in the way, somehow gets a government reflecting the solid majority who say they want decisive climate action, there will still be the inevitable tension between the local, national, and global. The United States (followed by Europe) owes by far the largest “climate debt” to the developing world: This country’s historic, cumulative emissions, and continuing per capita emissions, mean that Americans have used far more than their share of the atmospheric “carbon budget.” Again, if justice is what you care about, this means the United States must move faster and more radically than any other nation on Earth, whatever the cost. And while poor and working-class Americans should not bear the burden, even they are better off, and are responsible for higher per capita emissions, than the global poor—who far outnumber them.
This is a hard pill to swallow. And yet the alternative to the United States paying its global debt is a world without any hope of justice, anywhere.
So, yes, the West Coast is burning at a terrifying and unprecedented rate. Yes, Houstonians have suffered five 500-year floods in five years, and the Gulf Coast is pummeled by storm after ever more devastating storm, with the poor and racially marginalized suffering most, just as they’ve long suffered the most from fossil-fuel pollution. And yet, do any of us really think that Mariana Enriquez’s neighbors and their children in the Buenos Aires slums have any less right to a healthy, secure life than Americans lacking health care, food security, and clean air and water?
At the heart of the case for a Green New Deal, on both the national and global level, is the argument that any choice between justice and human survival is a false one. That is, in order to be politically viable—not to mention ethically defensible—any comprehensive climate strategy to prevent runaway catastrophe must combine rapid decarbonization with economic and social justice, because that’s the only way to mobilize and sustain a broad coalition to see the job through. That’s the idea, anyway, and it’s endorsed by Noam Chomsky and economist Robert Pollin in their new book, Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal.
A Noam Chomsky book about the climate crisis should be a noteworthy event. And yet it’s an odd and somewhat disappointing fact that Chomsky, although he has published more than 100 books in the course of his long career—a great many of them about global injustice and the threat of war to human survival—didn’t get around to writing a book about the existential threat of global warming until the year 2020, at the age of 91, when catastrophe on some scale is already assured due to decades of inaction.
And it’s an odd and disappointing little book that Chomsky and Pollin have given us. Presented in the form of an awkward dialogue between the authors, it adds little if anything new to the climate conversation, aside from Chomsky’s trademark style. Its appearance is especially odd considering that the book’s publisher, Verso, only a year ago released A Planet to Win, co-authored by Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen, and Thea Riofrancos, which mounts the most sophisticated argument I’ve seen for an internationalist Green New Deal. The best one can say is that Chomsky and Pollin accurately convey the dire emergency and the daunting scale of the challenge we face. There’s no sugarcoating. And the book’s central point—that a global Green New Deal capable of meeting the two-degree Celsius goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is economically viable—is of course crucial. Unsurprisingly, Pollin’s economic case is clear and convincing, drawing on his many years of work on the subject.
It’s the authors’ political analysis, squeezed into a brief and unfocused final chapter on “political mobilization to save the planet,” that’s lacking. Chomsky rails against the denialism of Trump, the Republicans, and the fossil-fuel lobby, and the evils of neoliberalism and encroaching fascism, all of which is rather obvious, conventional fare. (Even Chomsky’s beloved anarcho-syndicalism is nothing new for the climate left, though it’s rare to see Bakunin invoked repeatedly in the pages of a sober-minded climate policy book.) But Chomsky and Pollin have little to say about how to actually mobilize a movement for a global Green New Deal or how to connect the existing movements around the world.
At this late date, it’s hard to take any climate policy book seriously if it articulates no coherent political analysis, no theory of change or understanding of social movement strategy and tactics. Incredibly, Chomsky and Pollin appear unaware of the robust climate justice movement that’s been building for more than a decade in the United States and internationally, leading in this country to the Green New Deal coalition, which has significantly shifted national climate politics (as witnessed by Joe Biden’s vastly strengthened plan). And while the authors discuss Europe’s version of a Green New Deal, there’s not even a passing mention of the actually existing Green New Deal resolution in the United States, introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey; no mention of Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal plan, with its serious global component (see Tom Athanasiou’s analysis in The Nation); no attempt to explain how their Green New Deal vision differs from others, nor any critique of the various existing proposals. It seems only fair to ask that a book about the “Green New Deal” should address, you know, the Green New Deal and the movement that’s actually fighting for it.
Chomsky and Pollin do, however, find space in this slim book to offer their timid, conditional support of civil disobedience as a movement tactic. For the most part they doubt its “effectiveness”—as if the climate justice movement hasn’t already proven its efficacy over the past decade. Indeed, today’s Green New Deal movement in North America was built on years of relentless nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience, from the coal fields to the fracking fields, from coal plants and oil refineries to tar sands and fracked-gas pipelines. To ignore this central aspect of movement history is to ignore the centrality of frontline communities—Indigenous, Black and brown, poor and working-class white—and young people of all backgrounds in the struggle to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
If you want to know why the “kids” are angry, and why young people are willing to go to jail to fight for their future, it’s because their elders—including intellectuals across the entire political spectrum—have failed them for what is now three decades. They have every right to be pissed off and to demand the kind of political revolution a Green New Deal requires.
Some of that passion comes through in Winning the Green New Deal: Why We Must, How We Can, a new collection of essays edited by the Sunrise Movement’s Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti. With strong contributions from a superb cast of contributors—among others, David Wallace-Wells, Kate Aronoff, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Joseph Stiglitz, Julian Brave Noisecat, the Rev. William J. Barber II, and Waleed Shahid—this is the volume that should serve as the definitive introduction to the Green New Deal and the coalition of movements behind it. Even so, it addresses only the US, not the global context.
Lest we forget, the IPCC makes clear that to have any chance of staying “well below” two degrees of warming, preventing huge swaths of the Global South from becoming uninhabitable—and allowing developing countries some shot at a livable future—global greenhouse emissions must fall by half in the next 10 years, and must be all but eliminated by around 2050. The speed and scale of that global shift—truly revolutionary—is almost unimaginable, not for economic (as Pollin shows) but for political reasons, given the unprecedented level of national and international coordination it would require. And as noted, it’s a necessity that the United States, Europe, and other Global North economies decarbonize much sooner, if only because they have the technological and economic capability, even as they help mobilize and finance the energy transition in the developing world. This is basic stuff, Climate 101—and it’s why the Sunrise-backed Green New Deal calls for a 10-year mobilization to decarbonize the US economy as far as technically possible, a far tighter timeline than Biden’s and the Democrats’, who aim for 2050. Whether or not a 10-year time frame is actually feasible—and we won’t know until we try—the point is that only an all-out effort on that scale by the United States and Europe will offer the hope of meeting the ultimate global emissions target for mid-century.
It’s one thing to rehearse these numbers and point out that this is what the world’s climate scientists tell us is necessary to salvage a habitable planet. It’s another thing entirely to ask poor and working-class Americans, or anyone who has lost a job and faces economic insecurity, to take a giant leap of faith that the Green New Deal’s promises of jobs, universal health care, racial and environmental justice, and just-transition policies for workers and communities will be fulfilled. Given the political system we’ve got, why should anyone believe they will? The truth is, nobody knows exactly how a comprehensive Green New Deal will play out, or if it’s even possible. And where there are looming unknowns, especially for economically vulnerable people, there will be fear. Most Americans are still more afraid of losing their paycheck than losing the planet. As the French Yellow Vest (gilets jaunes) movement, rebelling against President Emmanuel Macron’s ill-conceived and regressive fuel tax, memorably put it: “You talk about the end of the world. We’re talking about the end of the month.”
And then there is that vast portion of humanity only trying to get through another day.
It’s impossible to predict whether the movement for a Green New Deal in the United States, with its emerging coalition of labor unions, racial and environmental justice movements, and a galvanized generation of young people, can spearhead a democratic, bottom-up political revolution to overcome the obstacles of our antidemocratic system. First, there’s a make-or-break election to be won—and defended—in November. Beyond that, all we can say with any degree of certainty is that the struggle for a genuine political revolution in this country, to achieve that radical 10-year mobilization, is what global solidarity must look like now.
No such revolution will be possible unless we’re willing to truly level with the public about the dire situation and what those of us in the wealthiest countries owe the rest of the world. Because it will require more of each of us, a higher level of commitment, than anyone in our national climate politics is yet asking: a willingness to sacrifice, to take risks, to tell the truth no matter how ugly and no matter the consequences. It’s going to take all of this on the part of far more people, from all walks of life, than we’ve ever seen in our nation’s history. And if there aren’t enough of us willing to take that leap, then we’ll soon have to acknowledge that “climate justice” and “global solidarity” are empty phrases—and that Mariana Enriquez’s and Sulaiman Addonia’s families, and those of countless people like them, are on their own.
Another servant of the poor, one who “burned his life with the poor”. Having lived 30 years in Brazil, Father Julio Renato Lancellotti is the missionary the Pope referred to during his Sunday Angelus. Pope Francis said he was able to speak to him on the phone after having received his letter at the end of September.
The short letter brings to light the daily misery that Father Julio shares with the people who live on the streets of São Paulo. A scene which has been harshly complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic which, thrown in with the endemic poverty that afflicts these people, creates an unimaginable and even unprecedented violation of human dignity. Father Julio has seen so much of this, and yet he tells the Pope how surprised he is to see how a serious health crisis has become the proscenium of an even greater number of attacks on the value of life in Brazil.
Unequal Struggle
The letter that arrived on Pope Francis’ table is accompanied by photos that show the truth of the missionary’s words. The challenge of a small parish against a great global virus, the struggle of an island with the poor that tries to offer the bare minumum in order to protect health, even in situations where social distancing is practically impossible, and where there is a lack of food, showers and sinks. And yet, Father Julio assures us, these are people we would not and will not abandon.
“This is the messenger of God”
The letter sent to Pope Francis concluded with a request for a blessing that the missionary would have liked to receive in person, though he admits himself that this would be impossible as he would be unable to physically undertake the journey to Rome. The story of an old man who, the Pope told the faithful gathered for his Sunday Angelus, lives “old age in peace. This is our Mother Church, this is the messenger of God who goes to the crossroads.”
The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs – European Banking Authority, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and European Securities and Markets Authority) published today its decision in the appeal case brought by Mr Howerton against the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The Board of Appeal’s decision considered as inadmissable the Appellant’s claim that six national financial supervisory authorities and ESMA should have taken supervisory steps in relation to an alleged non-application of Union law.
The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought forward by Mr Howerton as inadmissible as the facts described by the Appellant do not relate in any way to aspects under the supervision of the relevant six national authorities nor of ESMA. The Board of Appeal does not see, therefore, how the six national financial supervisory authorities and ESMA could investigate and take supervisory steps with regard to the facts described by the Appellant in his complaints and in the appeal.
Background
Between 5 and 6 July 2020 Mr Howerton sent several requests to investigate six national competent authorities under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. ESMA assessed the content of the requests to investigate and concluded that the facts described in the requests were outside its remit as they did not fall under any of the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. The Appellant filed an appeal against this conclusion on 3 August 2020.
-132.jpg?w=696&resize=696,0&ssl=1 "Letter from prison: ‘Today’s war is about trying to read fewer books’")
