Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)
Defendant admits punching victim in the face multiple times causing serious injury
Seattle – A 49-year-old member of the Lummi Nation pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to assault resulting in serious bodily injury, announced U.S. Attorney Tessa M. Gorman. Jason Sieber Sr. was charged federally in February 2024, for the October 20, 2023, assault of his domestic partner. Sieber has been detained at the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac since his arrest in February 2024. He is scheduled for sentencing on December 20, 2024.
According to records filed in the case, Sieber became angry with the victim over the amount of time it was taking for her to cook dinner. He struck her repeatedly in the face and head and kept her from leaving the home to get help. The blows with his closed fist caused the victim to suffer facial fractures, extreme pain, and disfigurement.
The victim reported the assault to Lummi Nation Police a few days after the assault. Sieber was charged in tribal court. The case was ultimately referred to federal prosecutors.
Assault resulting in bodily injury is punishable by up to ten years in prison. U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez will determine the appropriate sentence after considering sentencing guidelines and other factors.
The case was investigated by the Lummi Nation Police Department and the FBI as part of the Safe Trails Taskforce.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys J. Tate London and Erika Evans. Mr. London serves as a Tribal Liaison for the U. S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Washington.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)
PHILADELPHIA – United States Attorney Jacqueline C. Romero announced that Amir Harvey, 24, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, entered a plea of guilty today before United States District Court Judge Paul S. Diamond to Hobbs Act robbery, carjacking, and felon in possession of ammunition, in connection with the robbery of a commercial business and a carjacking, both in Northeast Philadelphia.
Harvey was arrested and charged by complaint in September of 2022 and then indicted on these charges in October of that year.
On September 9, 2022, at approximately 11 p.m., the defendant and three others approached the Hook and Reel restaurant, located at 9763 Roosevelt Boulevard. Upon encountering an employee of the restaurant outside, Harvey and the others forced him inside, ransacked the office, stole about $400 from the cash drawers, and fled.
In the early morning hours of September 19, 2022, Philadelphia police officers responded to a report of a robbery in progress on the 8900 block of Maxwell Place, where the victim reported that her car had just been stolen by an armed individual as she and her teenage daughter were about to leave for school.
The victim stated that around 6:15 a.m., she started her vehicle using an application on her cell phone. A short time later, she and her daughter exited their house and walked to the car parked in the front driveway, when they were approached by an armed individual, later identified as the defendant, who pointed a firearm, later found to be a replica, at their heads.
The defendant grabbed the victim’s keys and purse and sped away in her vehicle. The victim then used its location tracking feature on her cell phone app and informed police, who responded to that location on the 2000 block of Griffith Street, about 2½ miles from the victim’s home. Using neighborhood video surveillance footage, investigators traced the movement of the victim’s vehicle and the defendant to a nearby apartment complex.
“Amir Harvey ambushed a worker just trying to wrap up his shift, and a mom and daughter looking to start their day,” said U.S. Attorney Romero. “Robbing innocent people at gunpoint, even if the gun’s not real, is no game. It’s a serious crime — and an excellent way to earn an extended stay in federal prison. My office and our partners on the Philadelphia Carjacking Task Force will continue to make Philly safer, as we lock up violent criminals with regard for neither the law nor other people.”
“Violence against innocent Philadelphia victims — in this case a business employee, mother, and daughter — will not stand,” said Eric DeGree, Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Philadelphia Field Office. “ATF is on the frontline in the fight against violent crime, particularly carjackings and robberies. We hope this case deters those willing to use violence in our community. We will continue to work with our local, state, and federal partners to prevent and prosecute violent crime when it occurs.”
The swift action to investigate and federally charge this defendant is the work of the Philadelphia Carjacking Task Force, which comprises members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Violent Crime Unit; the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Philadelphia Police Department. The goal of the Task Force is to stem the wave of armed carjackings and violent crimes through investigative and enforcement techniques meant to identify, and refer for federal prosecution, all who terrorize innocent victims through commission of these offenses within Philadelphia and surrounding areas.
This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Philadelphia Police Department and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Robert E. Eckert and Lauren E. Stram.
Oxford City Council has published its annual housing complaints report for 2023/24.
The Complaint Performance and Service Improvement Report highlights key performance data, trends and service improvements related to council housing complaints.
The report also outlines how the Council is adapting to meet new regulatory standards set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023.
The report includes a breakdown of complaints handled directly by the Council and ODS.
There is a two-stage complaints process. The Council’s aim is to resolve all initial (Stage 1) complaints as quickly as possible. If a tenant is unhappy with the outcome, they can make a further (Stage 2) complaint where a senior officer will carry out a more detailed review.
Key findings
There were 565 Stage 1 complaints – with 431 (76%) handled by ODS and 134 (24%) by the Council.
Overall, 334 complaints (59%) were upheld and 231 (41%) were not upheld. These included 82 complaints about the Council and 252 about ODS.
A total of 30 complaints were escalated to Stage 2 – with 19 (63%) handled by the Council and 11 (37%) by ODS.
Many of these had been upheld at Stage 1 and needed more work like agreeing compensation or completing repairs. As a result, 25 (83%) were upheld on review – including 16 complaints about the Council and 9 about ODS.
The main issues raised in complaints included delays in repairs, poor communication and the handling of damp and mould. The Council recognises the need for better communication and improved complaint management to reduce dissatisfaction.
Nearly all complaints were resolved within the Housing Ombudsman’s timescales, including 95% of Stage 1 complaints and all Stage 2 complaints.
Learning and service improvements
In response to feedback and in preparation for the new Housing Ombudsman’s code, the Council made significant changes to its complaints handling processes in 2023/24, including:
establishing a dedicated customer care and complaints team within Landlord Services to ensure independent and thorough investigations
the introduction of ODS’ texting service to make managing repair appointments and providing immediate feedback easier for tenants
providing enhanced training for staff to recognise complaints early and respond effectively
appointing a specialist damp and mould surveyor to deal with complex cases
implementing new systems to improve tracking and reporting of complaints and related service issues
Next steps
In the year ahead, the Council aims to further develop its strategy for involving tenants in running their homes and estates, improve IT systems for tracking complaints and ensure resident feedback continues to shape services.
These changes are designed to build confidence in the complaints process and ensure the Council’s housing services meet the expectations of its tenants and leaseholders.
Comment
“We welcome the publication of this report, as it’s vital for us to be open about our complaints performance and show where we need to do better. We take complaints very seriously and we’re determined to learn from past mistakes to keep improving our services for our tenants and leaseholders.”
Councillor Linda Smith, Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities,
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Minister Doughty outlined the UK’s commitment to responsible behaviour in cyberspace in a keynote speech at RUSI’s Securing Cyberspace Conference.
Location:
London
Delivered on:
(Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)
Thank you very much for traveling from near and far.
It’s a real pleasure. We’ve got so many leading lights in government, industry, law enforcement, academia and civil society here in one room.
And I’m very grateful to RUSI for bringing this together as they so often do.
This is a very welcome opportunity to reflect on an important mission for the new government that I’m proud to serve in, and that is, of course, enhancing cyber security and promoting responsible behaviour in cyberspace.
You in this room are all of our vital and valid partners in this.
And everyone here today has a role to play in shaping the future agenda, bringing diverse perspectives, specialist knowledge and deep expertise.
So thank you once again.
And I really hope that this conference, which we’ve been proud to support, helps you forge fresh connections and find new ways to collaborate.
And we cannot meet at a more pivotal moment in world history – a moment of the most extraordinary change, of risk, and of opportunity.
Because from our banks to our electricity grid, from our defence to our hospitals, the online cyber world underpins every aspect of our society.
And with every day that passes, we of course, rely on it more for our prosperity and our security.
But you hardly need to be told that this brave new world has a dark side -and the years to come will see us walking dangerous and difficult complex paths.
And I just reflect in my own life, I got my first email address when I was only 15 or 16 years old.
I went to an international school in Canada. It was quite a big chance to connect with some of my classmates from across the world, but my parents were still not used to the system. They were printing out my emails when I sent them home, kept them all in a folder as a physical copy and presented them to me.
But today, of course, we’re in that world shaped by Al and quantum, by ever evolving threats and opportunities.
And of course, we know that state actors, criminals and others who want to harm us are fighting hard for their share of this space which knows no borders.
Those are the threats, but we also have huge opportunities and the question, of course, for all of us is how we embrace the opportunities that cyber brings in every aspect whilst addressing those key challenges.
And so I’m grateful for the chance to share some perspectives with you today.
I wanted to start by saying that since taking office in July, growth and security have been among the government’s very top priorities and they will remain that way.
In a world where we all live and work online, investing in cyber security and promoting responsible behaviour is an essential part of this mission, because fundamentally, and you will all know this, there is no national security, no economic security without cyber security.
We cannot fulfil our growth Mission as a government without cyber resilient businesses and supply chains, a Cyber aware workforce and society.
And of course, all of those underpinned by strong technical and skills expertise in the cyber sector.
This is true for all of us, investing in that security and promoting responsible behaviour has to be a collective endeavour.
I wanted to highlight today and reflect on three key themes that will guide our approach as a new government.
The first of those is that partnerships are vital for success.
When Alan Turing and the codebreakers in Bletchley Park – I have visited and I’m sure many of the you in this room have – they, of course, cracked that Enigma Cipher during the Second World War, sharing those insights with our allies saved countless lives and hastened the end of the war.
But of course, today, the world faces a whole new set of threats.
Spyware, ransomware, espionage, information manipulation and other forms of interference are causing untold losses and distress to our security and to our economic security.
The World Economic Forum estimates that the global cost of cybercrime will reach 24 trillion US dollars by 2027, that’s up from an almost eyewatering 8 trillion in 2022.
In the online world, the stakes are higher than ever, and the gloves are well and truly off.
So it’s only through solid, respectful, mutual, beneficial partnerships that we can fight back, overcome the challenges we face, and make the most of important opportunities for all our people.
It’s a pleasure to see friends from across the diplomatic audience today as well, ready to solve these problems working together with partners and allies across the world.
That’s why, from Day One, this new Government has focused on connecting Britain and strengthening relationships with countries around the world, from the Euro-Atlantic to the Global South.
That means enhancing our relationships with the EU and our European friends to forge closer cooperation spanning the whole range of issues, including military, economic and cyber, our unshakeable commitment to NATO, the bedrock of our defence.
And here I will point out that the UK is playing a leading role in work to deter and respond to cyber threats.
And later this year, we will of course host the NATO Cyber Defence conference to galvanize those efforts.
We’re also collaborating with many individual countries and partners, for example, in the Western Balkans, a region I’m privileged to know well from many visits.
Indeed, in Opposition, I met with young cyber experts in Pristina and discussed their careers, their prospects, and how we can work together as partners.
We’re, of course, working together with governments right across the world to bolster defence and counteract threats.
And just last month, I was in Moldova where I discussed these issues and partnerships at the Ministry of Defence in Chișinău.
And turning to the wider world, particularly our important partnerships in the Global South, our work with Interpol in Africa, across the Indo-Pacific and indeed, Latin America, tackling cybercrime, building closer cross-border partnerships.
In Africa, this partnership has helped to smash 20,000 criminal networks and seize illegal funds worth more than 40 million US dollars.
Last year, Interpol coordination with cybercrime units in Nigeria, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire saw 300 suspects arrested, 3 million US dollars’ worth of assets ceased and multiple criminal networks dismantled.
In the months and years ahead, the UK will continue to play our role at Interpol, an organisation which of course is at the sharp end of the increasingly borderless world of global crime.
Secondly, I want to talk about responsible cyber behaviour.
In all of our collaborations around the world, we remain committed to the United Nations Framework for Responsible State Behaviour in the use of Information Communication Technologies, but will be guided by our principles when it comes to ensuring safe and responsible use of cyber capabilities.
That’s the second important theme of our work overall, and the topic I know you’ll be discussing in detail at this conference, thanks again to RUSI for putting together such a strong and relevant agenda.
But for now, I will simply say that for the UK, this is about staying at the forefront of science and technology so we can understand threats and respond appropriately, and helping others do the same.
For example, supporting cyber security nonprofit organisations like Shadowserver to share threat data.
It’s also about transparency, which is so vital to facilitate cooperation, build trust and reduce the possibility of misinterpretation and escalation.
It’s also about inclusion, for example, by bringing stakeholders, including many of you in this room with all their expertise into that global cyber security discussion. A topic I will return to shortly.
But it’s also importantly about promoting accountability, because while we here in this room are united in our support for responsible behaviour, we know that not everybody plays by those rules.
Sometimes we will need to take firm action, and the UK will continue our important work with partners to hold criminals and others to account.
International cooperation is central, as demonstrated in August, when, after significant efforts by many of those in this room, here today, UN member states finalized a new draft Cybercrime Convention.
Many of us, of course, have the tools to take domestic action in this area too.
Just last week, on 1 October, alongside the United States and Australia, this country sanctioned 16 members of the Russian cybercrime gang, Evil Corp.
This group, which truly lives up to its name, has waged a campaign of destructive attacks worldwide for over a decade.
They include malware and ransomware attacks against UK health, government and public sector institutions as well as commercial technology companies.
Those sanctioned are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans.
Alongside our allies, we will continue to crack down on malicious activity and call out criminals like Evil Corp, who seek to underline our prosperity and security.
Thirdly, I wanted to stress the importance of a whole of society approach.
And as a Member of Parliament, I see how cybercrime, these challenges affect the lives of my constituents on a daily basis, whether it’s in fraud, whether it’s in terrorism, recruitment of individuals. I’ve seen these aspects in the lives of my constituents over the last five years.
As this conference demonstrates, we’re taking every opportunity to bring a wide range of expert stakeholders into our work. Because cyber is not, of course, as you all know, just about the technology, it’s about the people who interact with it, people who come from all spheres of society and all parts of the globe
That includes those outside the realm of Government, who have huge pools of talent, expertise, innovation and enthusiasm to bring to the table.
And we have to make that advantage count through a whole of society approach to cyber. So this government is absolutely committed to work hand in glove with our partners in industry, in the development sector, in academia, in the not-for-profit sector and beyond.
And we’ve got an impressive story already to tell here and want to do even more on. Let me just reflect on a few examples.
Firstly, as Putin continues to wage an illegal war in Ukraine, we are working with Mandiant, Palo Alto Networks, CloudFlare, BAE systems, along with the government in Kyiv to bolster Ukraine’s resilience to Russian cyber attacks.
We’re drawing on world leading expertise from across the public and private sectors to protect Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and vital public services
But our partnerships with industry leaders are not just about addressing threats.
As the third largest exporter of cyber security services globally, there’s no doubting how important this sector is to our own economy, indeed to all of our economies, we need to stay ahead of the game when it comes to innovation, and as I’ve said, we have huge talent to draw on.
We will work with industry to make the most of the opportunities for British businesses, boosting prosperity and sharing our expertise with the world.
We’re leading the efforts through our National Cyber Security Centre to test ideas, enhance understanding and to engage with talented individuals from the private sector to shape our approach.
Of course, companies also have a crucial role to play in setting out responsible values and principles for their work. We know this is not a straightforward process.
So we will work with partners to find solutions to problems like the unregulated market for spyware that’s being used to target journalists and other civil society communities across the globe, violating human rights and ultimately undermining our free and open societies.
We’re bringing people together through the Pall Mall process – from states, industry and civil society to tackle the misuse of commercial spyware and other tools.
And besides those efforts to turbocharge our economy and shape the rules of the game, we want to work hard to level the playing field for people.
We want to be seeing cyber as an inclusive space where everyone can fulfil their potential.
That’s why we’re supporting schemes like the Caribbean Experts Fellowship – part of our wide-ranging work with the Commonwealth.
That scheme is going to support the brightest minds from across the region to shape the safe and prosperous cyberspace through academic research, opportunities, networking and more.
We’re also committed to close the gender gap in cyber because fundamentally, no country can achieve its full potential if it underuses 50% of its resources and talents.
And indeed, yesterday, on Ada Lovelace Day, the world celebrated the achievements of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and I want us to celebrate those achievements every day and create fresh opportunities for women in every area of this work.
The UK already has some great projects around the world helping smooth the path for a new generation of female cyber experts to make their mark on this world – from our ‘Her Cyber’ project in Albania, which reaches out to girls at an early age through after school clubs and running right through to university level support, to our UN Women in Cyber Fellowship, which is sponsored with partners including Canada, US and Germany, to encourage greater female representation in negotiations in the UN First Committee.
So, I’ve gone through three key themes today. I hope they give you some insights to our thinking and direction of travel, as a new government.
But to conclude, we are living in a world, as I said at the beginning, that was unimaginable just a few decades ago.
It’s a world that’s ripe with opportunity when it comes to cyber, but of course, laden with challenge.
I’ve been glad of the opportunity today to be able to set out some of the ways in which the government will make the most of those opportunities, together with you, while meeting challenges head on through partnerships spanning the globe, demonstrating what a responsible approach looks like, and collaborating with those outside the government who have so much to bring to these efforts.
That’s how we can ultimately keep our citizens safe, help our economies to flourish, protect our security and stand up for our values.
So once again, I want to welcome you all here today to add my support to your efforts today to discuss these important issues, and to give our commitment as a new government to work with all of you as we develop our capabilities to respond to those threats and opportunities in the future.
In a heartwarming event, the Samsung Sriperumbudur plant near Chennai, celebrated Family Day with the workers’ families.
The occasion brought together the entire Samsung workforce and their loved ones in an expression of unity. With a full day of festivities planned, the event was an unforgettable showcase of Samsung’s commitment to its people and the rich cultural diversity that defines its workplace.
“Our workforce is the backbone of our success, and today, we celebrate not just our workers, but their families as well. The strength of Samsung lies in the strong bond we share with each other, and days like these remind us that we are not just a company but a family,” said SH Yoon, Managing Director, Samsung Chennai Plant, expressing his heartfelt appreciation in his welcome speech.
The day kicked off with a spirited Chenda Melam performance, a traditional percussion ensemble from Kerala, setting the tone with its powerful, rhythmic beats. As the resonant sound of the chenda drums filled the air, workers and their families were greeted with refreshments, laying the groundwork for a day that blended work and family in a meaningful celebration.
One of the highlights of the day was a surprise video where families welcomed the workers, creating emotional moments for many. Balamuni, the wife of a long-time factory employee, said, “This day made us feel like we are part of the Samsung family. My husband always speaks about how much he values working here, and we got to see firsthand the sense of community that exists within the company. The factory tour was especially exciting for the children—seeing where their father works filled them with pride.”
Families were treated to a guided tour of the factory, offering a glimpse into the state-of-the-art facilities where their loved ones work each day. The tour, followed by a lunch gathering, fostered conversations between families, workers, and management, further deepening the sense of camaraderie.
The event also featured two liv& ely photo booth sessions, ensuring that everyone took home memories of the day. In the second half of the day, a fun fashion show took center stage, with workers and their families showcasing their creativity. As cheers echoed through the plant, the joy and energy were palpable.
Divakar, Operator, PBA & SMD at plant, shared his thoughts: “The Family Day event made us feel valued. It’s not every day that our families get to understand what we do and see where we spend most of our time. Today, they got to experience a part of our lives that is usually separate, and that means a lot to me.”
The day concluded with prize distribution, group photos, and a lucky draw, but the lasting takeaway was Samsung’s commitment to fostering a sense of belonging and pride within its workforce.
The event was a testament to Samsung’s people-centric culture, where employees and their families are placed at the heart of the company’s success.
It’s rare that any particular event can be confidently predicted to be of major historical significance before it happens, but American presidential elections definitely fit the bill. And while all presidential elections are momentous, each one has unique dynamics and characteristics that influence history in very different ways.
It was with this in mind that three UConn scholars gathered at the Old State House in Hartford on Tuesday, Oct. 8, to analyze the current presidential contest in terms of historical significance – and what makes this election distinct.
Christopher Vials, professor of English at UConn, engages in a discussion during the “Historic Firsts: The 2024 Presidential Election” forum at the Old State House in Hartford on Oct. 8, 2024. (Sydney Herdle/UConn Photo)
One of the most striking differences between this election and every previous presidential campaign is that a major party nominee – Vice President Kamala Harris – is a woman of color. Even more remarkable, the scholars said, is the way she came to win the Democratic Party’s nomination – being endorsed by President Joe Biden after his unprecedented decision to drop out of the race just weeks before the party’s nominating convention in August.
“What I will never forget, especially as a political scientist, is the way she came to be the Democratic nominee,” said Evelyn Simien, professor of Political Science, Director of the Africana Studies Institute, and author of “Historic Firsts: How Symbolic Empowerment Changes U.S. Politics (Oxford University Press, 2016).”
Manisha Sinha, the James L. and Shirley A. Draper Chair in American History and author of “The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition (Yale University Press, 2017)” and “The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860-1920 (Liveright, 2024),” agreed that the circumstances of Harris’ nomination make the 2024 election unique.
“This is probably one of the first times we’ve had a presidential nominee so late in the game who has been able to step up so quickly,” she said.
Another distinctive factor of this election, argued Christopher Vials, professor of English and author of “Haunted by Hitler: Liberals, the Left, and the Fight Against Fascism in the United States (University of Massachusetts Press, 2014),” is that “new taboos continue to be broken” in political rhetoric surrounding the race.
Pointing to an interview the pundit Tucker Carlson conducted in September with a far-right podcaster notorious for defending the Third Reich and blaming Winston Churchill for World War II, Vials said, “Tucker Carlson is nodding his head, and then Elon Musk tweets about how that was a fabulous interview. They’re sort of breaking the Hitler taboo now.”
One concern all three scholars shared was the possibility of low voter turnout, especially in states like Connecticut, where the presidential race is not expected to be competitive.
“A lot of people become a little blasé about elections; they think noting changes, they think their vote doesn’t count, and that can open the door to authoritarian outcomes in elections,” Sinha said.
Simien said she reminds her students that the right to vote has only, in historical terms, recently been won by all Americans regardless of race or gender, and shouldn’t be taken for granted.
“Younger voters owe a debt to older generations, people who have sacrificed life and limb so that we can have the right to cast a vote in American elections,” she said.
Vials noted the importance of elections for state and local offices, pointing out that decisions made in city hall or Hartford often have immediate, direct consequences in daily life.
“State elections affect your lives a lot; they determine whether social services are going to be provided, whether universities are going to be funded, tax rates, who gets taxed – those are things that affect people’s lives every day, apart from the federal election,” he said.
Connecticut residents will be able to vote early for the first time this year: balloting begins on October 21 and runs for 14 days.
The forum at the Old State House was Sponsored by the UConn American Studies Program, the Department of Critical and Social Inquiry, the English Department, The Africana Studies Institute, the History Department, and the Department of Political Science at UConn.
A video recording of the discussion can be viewed on YouTube.
BOSTON — Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston apprehended an unlawfully present 38-year-old Guatemalan national charged with forcibly raping a Massachusetts minor. Officers with ERO Boston arrested Maynor Francisco Hernandez-Rodas Sept. 20 in Lowell.
“Maynor Francisco Hernandez-Rodas stands accused of horrific crimes against a Massachusetts child,” said ERO Boston acting Field Office Director Patricia H. Hyde. “He represents a significant danger to the children of our community that we will not tolerate. ERO Boston will continue to prioritize public safety by arresting and removing egregious noncitizen threats from our New England neighborhoods.”
Hernandez unlawfully entered the United States on an unknown date, at an unknown location and without inspection, admission or parole by a U.S. immigration official.
The Bridgeport, Connecticut, District Court convicted Hernandez Sept. 16, 2011, for the offense of breach of peace. The court sentenced him to six months in prison followed by a six-month suspended sentence and one year of probation.
The Norwalk, Connecticut, District Court convicted Hernandez May 15, 2016, for the offense of breach of peace and issued him a $100 fine.
The Lowell Police Department arrested Hernandez June 14, 2024, for aggravated rape of a child and rape of a child with force.
ERO Boston lodged an immigration detainer against Hernandez with the MCHOC June 28.
The Middlesex Superior Court arraigned Hernandez Sept. 4 for aggravated rape of a child with force and rape of a child by force.
The Middlesex Superior Court ignored ERO Boston’s immigration detainer and released Hernandez from custody on an unknown date.
Officers with ERO Boston arrested Hernandez Sept. 20 in Lowell. Hernandez remains in ERO custody.
As part of its mission to identify and arrest removable noncitizens, ERO lodges immigration detainers against noncitizens who have been arrested for criminal activity and taken into custody by state or local law enforcement. An immigration detainer is a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to state or local law enforcement agencies to notify ICE as early as possible before a removable noncitizen is released from their custody. Detainers request that state or local law enforcement agencies maintain custody of the noncitizen for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time the individual would otherwise be released, allowing ERO to assume custody for removal purposes in accordance with federal law.
Detainers are critical public safety tools because they focus enforcement resources on removable noncitizens who have been arrested for criminal activity. Detainers increase the safety of all parties involved — ERO personnel, law enforcement officials, the removable noncitizens and the public — by allowing an arrest to be made in a secure and controlled custodial setting as opposed to at-large within the community. Since detainers result in the direct transfer of a noncitizen from state or local custody to ERO custody, they also minimize the potential that an individual will reoffend. Additionally, detainers conserve scarce government resources by allowing ERO to take criminal noncitizens into custody directly rather than expending resources locating these individuals at-large.
ERO conducts removals of individuals without a lawful basis to remain in the United States, including at the order of immigration judges with Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Executive Office for Immigration Review is a separate entity from the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration judges in these courts make decisions based on the merits of each individual case, determining if a noncitizen is subject to a final order of removal or eligible for certain forms of relief from removal.
As one of ICE’s three operational directorates, ERO is the principal federal law enforcement authority in charge of domestic immigration enforcement. ERO’s mission is to protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of those who undermine the safety of U.S. communities and the integrity of U.S. immigration laws, and its primary areas of focus are interior enforcement operations, management of the agency’s detained and non-detained populations, and repatriation of noncitizens who have received final orders of removal. ERO’s workforce consists of more than 7,700 law enforcement and non-law enforcement support personnel across 25 domestic field offices and 208 locations nationwide, 30 overseas postings, and multiple temporary duty travel assignments along the border.
Members of the public can report crimes and suspicious activity by dialing 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.
Learn more about ICE’s mission to increase public safety in our New England communities on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @EROBoston.
Alberta’s government, in partnership with Alberta Health Services (AHS), the University of Alberta, University of Calgary and the Professional Association of Resident Physicians of Alberta has reached a four-year agreement that provides competitive and fair-market compensation for physicians in training.
The negotiated agreement provides wage increases of three per cent in each of the first two years, and two per cent in each of the last two years. It also includes market adjustments that put Alberta on par with other western Canadian medical schools.
Ensuring resident physicians receive competitive, fair-market compensation while they train and provide services across the province will help stabilize and strengthen acute health care today while bringing medical students and ultimately more physicians to the province to support the province’s future health needs.
“Alberta’s government is grateful for all the hard work resident physicians put in as they complete their training. We are pleased to see that a new agreement has been reached and look forward to more physicians calling Alberta home.”
“We are extremely grateful to all of our resident physicians, who play a vital role in caring for Albertans and supporting our front-line physicians and health care teams. This agreement will help us recruit medical students and encourage them to practise in this province.”
Rural and Remote Family Medicine Resident Physician Bursary Pilot Program
The agreement builds on actions Alberta’s government is taking to make the province a more attractive place for medical students and resident physicians to study and practise. On Oct. 3, Alberta’s government announced measures to improve health care in rural and remote communities through the new Rural and Remote Family Medicine Resident Physician Bursary Pilot Program. The bursary program is part of the province’s Rural Health Action Plan.
The pilot program will provide up to $8 million annually for the next two years to medical students in their final year of an undergraduate medical program when they are matched with a family medicine residency program at the University of Alberta or University of Calgary, or to residents currently completing a family medicine residency at either university regardless of their year of study. In return, bursary recipients will commit to delivering comprehensive patient care in eligible communities for three years after completing their residency.
“With this agreement, Alberta strengthens its position as an attractive destination for resident physicians across Canada. By enhancing compensation, training and working conditions, we ensure Alberta recruits and retains the brightest medical talent to serve our communities and shape the future of health care.”
“The University of Alberta is pleased collaborations with our partners have resulted in an agreement that reflects the critical impact resident physicians make in our health care system so all Albertans receive the care they need.”
“Remuneration, respect, retention and recruitment of rural generalists are key to elevating rural hospitals to becoming rural centres of excellence. With this agreement and bursary pilot program, the Alberta government is recognizing rural health as being different, requiring separate and unique solutions for our communities that are mutually beneficial in enhancing the health of rural Albertans.”
Quick facts
Resident physicians have graduated medical school but are completing post-graduate training in a residency program to obtain their licence to practise. With residency programs requiring an additional two to seven years of post-graduate training, most resident physicians spend more than 10 years training to become fully licensed physicians and surgeons.
The Professional Association of Resident Physicians of Alberta represents more than 1,660 resident physicians in Alberta.
The current agreement between AHS, the University of Alberta, University of Calgary and the association ended on June 30, 2024.
The resident physician agreement is funded by Alberta Health through a grant to AHS and the universities.
Related information
Postgraduate medical education (AHS)
Related news
Improving health care in rural and remote Alberta (Oct. 3, 2024)
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (b)
WASHINGTON – Two men from Indiana pleaded guilty on Oct. 3, 2024, to assaulting law enforcement during the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. Their actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election.
Donald Lee Moss, 62, of Elizabethtown, Indiana, and James Link Behymer, 61, of Hope, Indiana, each pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. The two men will be sentenced on Feb. 13, 2025.
According to court documents, at about 2:00 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., a group of Metropolitan Police (MPD) officers, wearing riot gear, walked toward the Lower West Terrace of the U.S. Capitol building as angry and violent rioters descended on, and surrounded, the officers and began shouting obscenities and curses at them.
The surrounded officers repeatedly issued commands to “move back.” They also began to move rioters away from their positions with their hands and batons. At approximately 2:01 p.m., Behymer approached the MPD officers with his friend, Donald Lee Moss. An MPD officer then extended his hand toward Behymer and said, “Sir, step back for your own safety.” Other officers directed Behymer and Moss to move back, but they did not. Behymer raised his right arm with a closed fist and repeatedly shouted, “USA! USA! USA!” At the same time, Moss pointed toward the U.S. Capitol building and shouted, “This is our f— house!”
At 2:01 p.m., an MPD officer extended their hand, attempting to keep Behymer back. Behymer then swung his fist down, striking the officer’s wrist. A few seconds later, the MPD officer placed their right hand on Behymer to keep him back; however, Behymer swung his left fist downward and struck the officer’s arm a second time while Moss forcibly shoved the officer’s hand off Behymer.
Behymer continued to shout, “USA! USA! USA!” and Moss told the officer to “Get your f— hand off of him!” as the mob constricted the officers’ movements and pushed into them. Some members of the mob threw objects, including a traffic cone, at the officers. Amidst the chaos, rioters screamed: “F— You! F— Nazis!”, “Go back to the Gestapo training camp!” “You’re the traitors!” and “You wanna take us all on?!” Shortly after striking the officer’s arm, Moss leaned in and forcefully pushed another MPD officer from behind.
At approximately 2:02 p.m., Behymer was at the front of the rioters, physically pressed into the officers. A rioter shouted at police: “Y’all surrounded.” Behymer then grabbed an officer’s hand and baton while the officer attempted to keep Behymer away. At approximately 2:03 p.m., Behymer re-engaged with police—again grabbing an officer’s baton.
Ten minutes after assaulting and opposing officers on the Lower West Terrace, at approximately 2:13 p.m., Behymer and Moss entered the U.S. Capitol building through the Senate Wing doors. At approximately 2:21p.m. Moss stood at a shattered window and waived other rioters towards the Capitol building, encouraging them to enter the building. The two men then made their way toward the Crypt and the hallway linking toward the Senate Wing Doors. At about 2:31 p.m., Moss carried a chair across the Crypt lobby and placed it directly in the path of the retractable ceiling door to prevent the door from closing.
Moss and Behymer exited the Capitol at approximately 2:41 p.m. and 2:43 p.m., respectively At about 2:48 p.m., rioters broke through a barricade set up by Capitol Police at the Senate Wing doors. Roughly two minutes later, Behymer and Moss re-entered the Capitol again via the Senate Wing doors and walked toward the Crypt before exiting at 3:34 p.m.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section are prosecuting this case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana provided valuable assistance.
The FBI’s Indianapolis and Washington Field Offices are investigating this case. Moss was listed as BOLO (Be on the Lookout) #401 on the FBI’s website. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department.
In the 44 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,504 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 560 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing.
Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.
The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced funding to support the further development of critical minerals in Sudbury and the surrounding region. Minister Wilkinson announced up to $8.4 million in conditionally approved funding provided through the Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund (CMIF), pending final due diligence from Natural Resources Canada, for five critical mineral infrastructure development projects in the Sudbury and Timmins regions. This investment would include:
October 9, 2024 Sudbury, Ontario Natural Resources Canada
The Government of Canada is working to seize the generational opportunity presented by critical minerals while ensuring that Indigenous Peoples and communities share in those benefits. Canada is well positioned to be a global leader and first-class producer of a wide variety of critical minerals that are essential to power the clean economy — including nickel and copper — and, in turn, create good jobs and support economic opportunities across critical mineral value chains — from mining to processing, manufacturing and recycling.
Today, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced funding to support the further development of critical minerals in Sudbury and the surrounding region.
Minister Wilkinson announced up to $8.4 million in conditionally approved funding provided through the Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund (CMIF), pending final due diligence from Natural Resources Canada, for five critical mineral infrastructure development projects in the Sudbury and Timmins regions. This investment would include:
Up to $6.8 million for the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project to inform the mine’s electrification and connection to the Ontario electricity grid. This includes:
Up to $2.4 million for Transmission Infrastructure Partnerships 1 Limited to advance a transmission line connecting the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project to the Ontario power grid.
Up to $4.4 million for Canada Nickel Company Ltd. to conduct studies to inform the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project’s electrification plan. When in production, the Project is expected to create over 1,500 high-paying jobs, according to Canada Nickel, and its electrification will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent compared with diesel-powered operations.
Up to $1.6 million for Magna Mining Inc. to support pre-construction activities to help power the Shakespeare and Crean Hill mines with clean electricity and connect the Shakespeare mine to the Ontario highway system. These mines will produce nickel and copper and help meet demand for these critical minerals as demand for use in clean technologies increases. The Crean Hill project is restarting an existing mine to meet this demand.
Also, with $2.7 million from Natural Resources Canada, Giyak Mishkawzid Shkagmikwe Inc. (GMS) and Taighwenini Technical Services Corporation (TTS), the economic development corporations of Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Wahnapitae First Nation respectively, will purchase two production mining drills. These drills will be leased out to support First Nations training opportunities, wealth generation and participation in the clean economy. This purchase will help Indigenous partners participate in the revitalization at Vale’s Stobie mine, which is a nearly $1-billion joint project of Vale, Thiess, United Steel Workers and local First Nations, to produce more nickel and copper. The historic Stobie Pit, which ceased operations in 2017 after 100 years, will be restarted to continue providing good jobs for the people of Sudbury, and production is expected to ramp up in the coming years.
Minister Wilkinson made the announcement while visiting the Vale Stobie mine site in Sudbury. The Minister was in Sudbury to participate in the Conference of Mining Regions and Cities hosted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Critical minerals are essential components in products used for clean energy technologies such as electric vehicles, electrical transmission lines and batteries. Canada’s mining sector provides many of the building blocks of clean technologies, including nickel and copper, needed to fight climate change and build a clean economy.
Across the country, clean energy solutions are providing enormous economic opportunity for Canada. The critical mineral sector is already highly valuable to our economy. In 2022, the minerals and metals sector directly employed 420,000 people and contributed $109 billion of Canada’s total gross domestic product (GDP). Since 2020, automotive and battery manufacturers have announced investments of over $40 billion in electric vehicle production and the battery supply chain. With government support and with demand for critical minerals expected to double by 2024, these sectors will only grow. Today’s investments in mining and critical minerals will help deliver jobs and economic opportunities for Northern Ontario, along with Indigenous partners and communities.
Quotes
“Today’s investments are about fostering Northern Ontario’s mining expertise to create more jobs and drive economic growth. It is our priority that Indigenous partners have a part to play in the development of natural resources on our way to a clean energy future. The mining industry is one of the top employers for Indigenous communities across Canada, and we want to continue to encourage collaboration between mining and Indigenous communities.”
The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
“Canada is a mining nation and a leader in sustainable resource management. In Northern Ontario, particularly in Nickel Belt, our strong environmental, social and governance standards will be crucial as demand for critical minerals rises. By partnering with Indigenous communities and local mining partners, we ensure responsible sourcing of essential materials while protecting our planet and economy.”
Marc G. Serré, MP for Nickel Belt, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages
“Investing in critical minerals in Northern Ontario is vital for both our economic prosperity and future sustainability. Investing in our Indigenous communities is also fundamental to ensuring economic reconciliation. Northern Ontario has the key ingredients and partners to transition to a clean economy, and we know the right support is needed. These investments demonstrate our government’s commitment to supporting Indigenous communities and the mining and mining supply industry.”
Viviane Lapointe
Member of Parliament, Sudbury
“With our traditional territories spanning one of Canada’s key mining basins, it is critical that we take an active role in local mining activities. By owning and renting these drills, our communities will reap significant benefits, both economically and through the creation of meaningful employment opportunities.”
Craig Nootchtai
Gimaa (Chief), Atikameksheng Anishnawbek.
“This marks the beginning of an exciting new venture for us. I believe this is a great example of how we, as First Nation communities, can support mining on our traditional territories when it is carried out in a way that respects and strengthens Indigenous Peoples, as well as our culture and history.”
Larry Roque
Chief, Wahnapitae First Nation
“Canada Nickel is pleased to receive this contribution from the Government of Canada for the development of our clean energy infrastructure. With the CMIF’s support and meaningful Indigenous partnerships, Canada Nickel can integrate low-carbon grid power as we advance our Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project toward construction. Our flagship Project, anticipated to be Canada’s largest nickel mine, is expected to contribute a significant amount of nickel, cobalt and chromium to advance the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. Together, we are contributing to a future where resource development aligns with environmental stewardship and reconciliation.”
Mark Selby
CEO, Canada Nickel Company
“These proposed investments from the Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund will make a significant contribution toward the success of Magna Mining’s Crean Hill and Shakespeare Projects in Sudbury. We expect that these projects will benefit many stakeholders in the Sudbury region over the coming years, including the Indigenous communities and Indigenous-owned businesses that will play key roles in the development of these mines. We look forward to continued collaboration with the Government of Canada as we bring multiple new critical mineral mines into production in Sudbury.”
Paul Fowler
Senior Vice President, Magna Mining Inc.
Quick facts
Stainless steel is the largest end use for nickel, accounting for just under two-thirds of total consumption. Nickel is used as an alloying agent in the manufacture of both metal products that contain iron and those that do not. It is also used in electroplating, in which a thin layer of nickel is coated onto a metal object as a decorative feature or to provide resistance to corrosion and wear. While nickel is well known as a component in the manufacture of nickel-cadmium batteries, an important evolving use is in production of lithium-ion batteries for EVs.
In 2022, Canada produced 143,266 tonnes of nickel in concentrate. Ontario produced 50 percent of Canada’s mined nickel.
Ontario-based Electra Battery Materials is developing a cobalt and nickel sulfate production plant and a lithium-ion battery recycling plant north of Toronto.
The mining industry is the top private-sector industrial employer for Indigenous people in Canada.
Canada has developed its own critical minerals strategy with the aim of advancing the development of these resources and related value chains to drive the transition to a low-carbon economy and support advanced technology and manufacturing.
o supporting economic growth, competitiveness and job creation;
o promoting climate action and strong environmental management;
o enhancing global security and partnerships with allies;
o advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples; and
o fostering diverse and inclusive workforces and communities.
Canada’s whole-of-government approach to critical mineral development is collaborative, forward-looking, iterative, adaptive and long-term. The initiatives presented in the Strategy will be implemented and refined in collaboration with provincial, territorial, Indigenous, industry and other Canadian and international partners.
Budget 2022 allocated $100 million over five years starting in 2022–23, to renew and expand the Indigenous Partnerships Office (IPO) and the INRP Program to make it a national natural resource sector-wide program.
At least $25 million of the $80 million in INRP contribution funding is to be dedicated to early engagement and Indigenous communities’ capacity building to support their participation in the Critical Minerals Strategy.
The CMIF is a key program under the Strategy to support enabling clean energy and transportation infrastructure projects necessary to increase Canada’s supply of responsibly sourced critical minerals.
The CMIF supports strategic priorities such as decarbonizing industrial mining operations, strengthening supply chains through transportation infrastructure and advancing economic reconciliation by supporting the participation of Indigenous Peoples in infrastructure and critical minerals projects.
In addition, the federal government is helping to develop Canada’s abundant critical minerals through NRCan’s Regional Energy and Resource Tables. These regional tables are joint partnerships with individual provinces and territories — in collaboration with Indigenous partners and with the input of key stakeholders — to identify and accelerate shared economic priorities for a low-carbon future in the energy and resource sectors.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Tony Juniper speech at the launch of Natural England’s first State of Natural Capital Report
Location:
The State of Natural Capital Report launch
Delivered on:
(Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)
This notion of natural capital, I think, is really quite a powerful idea. I think everybody in the room will understand the notion of financial capital and how if we look after our capital assets, we get a flow of dividends and interest long into the future.
And of course, if we blow our capital, we go bankrupt. So it goes with natural capital and the extent to which, today confirmed by this report, we have drifted deeply into the red over the years. And this is now something which poses a source of risk. The state of natural capital very much confirms the need to grow Nature as a prerequisite for health, wealth and security. Indeed, with economic growth identified as an overriding national priority, it will be necessary to grow the natural assets needed to underpin that.
The report gives a clear snapshot of the state of these assets, and gives us a logical baseline from which to measure growth over time. It highlights the extent to which we rely on Nature, which gives us life’s essentials of fresh water, air and food. In fact, with 90% of the world’s food reliant on just 20 species, we ignore this at our peril. Nature also provides places to relax, resources to build with, and mitigation of the climate change impacts ever more visible on the planet.
In short, if we look after Nature, Nature will look after us, but the truth is, that we haven’t been. The web of life is in critical decline. Ninety percent of the UK’s wetlands have been lost in the modern era and over 97% of lowland semi-natural grasslands have been lost in the last century, taking with them countless birds, butterflies and bumblebees. Nature is being wiped off the face of our supposedly green and pleasant land. Yet we continue to act as if we were oblivious to the warning signs from a planet that is evidently struggling.
Impacts like these exacerbate many of the most serious threats to society. Nature loss and climate change fuel one another, so losing wildlife and habitat helps drive changes to weather systems to unprecedented extremes, which in turn forces more species to flee their traditional ranges and for some to be wiped out altogether.
For years, we have taken Nature for granted and taken more than it can sustainably supply. We are, in effect, running down those capital assets as we strip away Nature’s ability to provide clean water and carbon storage by degrading soils, which increases water pollution and sends harmful emissions into the atmosphere, affecting human health and adding to consumer bills. Those degraded soils and lost wetlands reduce landscapes’ ability to regulate temperature, hold water and to slow the flow of rivers, amplifying flooding downstream. Not only does this cause widespread human misery, it puts businesses and services out of action and adds considerably to insurance premiums.
It’s interesting to note in the wake of Hurricane Helene, which smashed through the southern states of the United States a couple of weeks ago, how many of the properties there were uninsured because they were not deemed to be in areas prone to flood risk. Thereby revealing a series of not only serious economic consequences, but also social ones, and the costs of degradation can be measured not only economically but in lives lost. Almost 3000 excess deaths occurred across the UK in 2022 as a result of extreme heat and this is also seen in the impacts of agriculture with flooding causing losses to farming income in England to drop by a fifth in 2023, leading to a £1 billion blow to this country’s GDP.
The decline of Nature is not only visible in the countryside, of course, but also in our towns and cities and villages, particularly amongst the most disadvantaged communities. Evidence gathered in the State of Natural Capital Report indicates that lower risks of sick days are associated with increased access to green and blue spaces. However, according to Natural England’s Green Infrastructure research, we see that around one in three people, 38%, do not live within 15 minutes of the green space, and they tend to be from more disadvantaged communities. The link between social and equalities and differences in health outcomes is thus strong and persistent.
The upside of this disturbing picture is that we can work together across society to recover Nature and unlock solutions to these pressing challenges For that to happen, information regarding the value we all derive from Nature needs to be put into the hands of those who decide on actions that shape our country at both national and local levels, and that’s where this research comes in.
It gives decision makers a vivid picture of these close dependencies between the social well-being and economic resilience and the ecosystems which underpin those essentials of our society. Taking a natural capital approach highlights the extent to which our mountains, wetlands, sea bed, soils and rivers are just as critical to business success and community wellbeing as roads, railways and broadband.
These natural assets add up to a national wealth service, providing a steady stream of essential goods and benefits upon which our economy and population rely. Setting them out so clearly as we’re doing today allows them to be moved out of the shadows and onto an extended balance sheet where companies can see their true value and act to protect these priceless and essential assets. This allows us to progress beyond just seeing the health of our economy and country in terms of GDP and to incorporate the health of our natural capital and its ability to sustain our economy into our understanding of the condition of our nation. It’s time we treasured this ‘National Wealth Service’ as much we do as we do the National Health Service.
What I hope people will understand as a result of this State of Natural Capital Report is that Nature isn’t some rather quaint, distant notion that inevitably gets trampled by progress, or occasionally holds it up. Nature is a dynamic, vigorous multilayered force that can provide so many of our essential needs today and into the future, if we take this opportunity to understand it better, to treat it with respect.
For these reasons, a thriving natural world means Nature flourishing across landscapes – hills, valleys, towns and cities, seas and shores, where people can be active, inspired and fulfilled. Healthy rivers and wetlands providing clean water and homes for wildlife and reducing the risks of flooding and drought. Restored peatlands and sea beds, storing vast quantities of carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Trees, shrubs, parks and rivers, cooling cities and some are bringing urban dwellers closer to Nature, reducing crime and encouraging businesses to invest. Hedgerows and flower-rich margins, ensuring a plentiful supply of pollinators for crops underpinning food security.
All of these benefits provide us with security and resilience in an uncertain world. Put them together and it’s very clear that Nature isn’t different to growth, it is at the heart of it. You cannot grow the economy if you don’t grow Nature. According to recent estimates, the value of the UK’s stock of natural capital assets is just over £1.5 trillion.
Is it wise to blow that capital and to not think about tomorrow? Or should we try to grow that capital to thereby grow the dividends and interest that we will get into the future?
The evidence presented in this report reveals the answer and how investing in Nature recovery pays the upfront costs many times over. However, each decade doubles the costs of restoring the damage, meaning that the longer we leave this process of Nature recovery, the more expensive it will become.
This report thereby offers an important resource for policymakers, making the invisible visible and providing the missing evidence needed, guiding the action that we require to achieve sustainable use of our natural assets. The case for Nature recovery as a result of this work, makes it an even stronger agenda. I encourage those of you here today not to read the report only and to be informed by it, but to use it in your future decision-making processes and to create a stronger positive outlook for our economy and society by doing so.
Mech Dara, an award-winning Cambodian journalist and one of the kingdom’s last remaining independent media voices, was arrested on Monday, September 30. He has been detained over a social media post for “incitement to disturb social security”, and faces up to two years in jail.
The news of Dara’s arrest has saddened and disturbed many within Cambodia and elsewhere. But it will have shocked few. Dara’s courageous journalism has made him a persistent thorn in the side of Cambodia’s ruling class.
No stranger to harassment and intimidation by Cambodia’s increasingly repressive state apparatus, Dara had told me when we last met that he was considering applying for political asylum abroad. Life had become impossible in Cambodia.
From humble beginnings, Dara built his reputation on a dogged commitment to justice, whose work includes exposing human rights abuse, illegal logging, land grabs and labour struggles in his homeland. These are rife in a notoriously corrupt state that ranks 141 out of 142 countries worldwide on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index.
Most recently, however, Dara’s investigations have focused on uncovering abuse in Cambodia’s cyberscam industry. Dara’s reporting, which in 2023 earned him a “Hero” commendation by the US State Department, revealed how the industry often involves cyberscam compounds staffed by victims of human trafficking.
His investigations have disclosed how these people are compelled under the threat of physical torture and financial extortion to perform acts of deception and fraud on targets across China, the US, Europe and beyond, through fake romances or cryptocurrency schemes.
The UN estimates that at least 100,000 people have been tricked into participating in this criminal industry, which is now said to be worth more than US$12 billion (£9.1 billion) per year in Cambodia.
Dara has turned to identifying the political and business elites in Cambodia whose complicity enables the criminal syndicates who run the compounds to flourish with impunity.
Some of his best-known work linked the LYP Group, which is owned by prominent Cambodian businessman and state senator, Ly Yong Phat, to the operation of scam compounds in Cambodia’s Koh Kong province. Ly Yong Phat continues to deny any involvement.
The timing of Dara’s arrest may be no coincidence. He was detained 18 days after the US treasury department sanctioned Ly Yong Phat for his role in serious human rights abuse related to the treatment of trafficked workers.
Dara’s arrest is believed by some to be an act of retaliation intended to send a chilling message to those who challenge the vested interests of Cambodia’s incumbent kleptocracy: be silent or you will be silenced.
It continues a pattern of the Cambodian oligarchy’s waging of “lawfare” against members of civil society, using the court system to intimidate and muzzle critics. It is the surest sign yet that Cambodia’s new prime minister, Hun Manet, intends to follow his predecessor’s pathway into intensifying authoritarianism.
The son rises
Cambodia’s self-proclaimed “strongman” leader, Hun Sen, stepped down as prime minster in August 2023 after nearly 40 years in power. He chose Manet, his oldest son, as his successor.
A dynastic succession does not typically indicate a democratic transfer of power. Yet hopes were raised that Manet might reverse the increasingly authoritarian trajectory of his father’s rule.
Where Hun Sen came of age fighting on the frontlines of Cambodia’s civil war, Hun Manet has had a more worldly upbringing. He was educated in the US and UK, and obtained a PhD in economics from the University of Bristol.
Cambodian prime minister, Hun Manet, who succeeded his father Hun Sen in 2023. Sa sola / Shutterstock
Some observers believed that the softly spoken and sharp-suited Manet might possess a more liberal worldview than that of his father, ushering a new era of renewed democracy.
Hun Sen’s reign in Cambodia was characterised by an increasing reliance on what researcher Neil Loughlin terms the “politics of coercion” to cement his hold on power. The Hun family are at the centre of a network of tightly entwined business and state elites that exert a stranglehold over Cambodia’s politics and economy.
This kleptocratic coalition is accused of asset-stripping the kingdom of its once-abundant natural resources, enriching themselves at the cost of impoverishing the many. As a result, popular dissent has grown.
To quell any threat to its longevity, the ruling Cambodian People’s party (CPP) has led a concerted crackdown on freedoms of association, assembly and expression. Over the past decade, this has included the shuttering of almost all independent news outlets, the dissolution of the opposition Cambodian National Rescue party, and the detention of its leader, Kem Sokha, under house arrest.
As the architect of the Paris Peace Accords that brokered the end to Cambodia’s civil war, the old guard of the party has sought to legitimise its heavyhanded approach by stressing the continued need to preserve order and stability to prevent descent into further unrest.
A false dawn
Manet has been keen to present himself as part of a new guard, ready to reengage with major powers such as the US and EU. Both the US and EU had cooled relations with Cambodia following the democratic deficits unleashed during Hun Sen’s premiership.
Yet the cyberscam story and its growing repercussions have embarrassed Cambodia on the international stage. By apparently censoring Mech Dara for uncovering the scandal, rather than seeking to control party elements responsible for the cyberscam scourge, Manet appears to be showing where his true loyalties and sentiments lie.
Dara is but one of a long line of dissenters charged with “incitement” by the CPP-controlled courts. With its explicit reference to the conjured threat of renewed social chaos, it harks to the CPP’s past as custodian of order and stability.
The heavyhanded nature of the arrest itself, where Dara was apprehended by a convoy of six military vehicles while on vacation with his family, is also straight out of the CPP’s historic playbook. Persecution not by stealth but by flourish, it sends a wider message to civil society to deter any would-be imitators.
More crucially, it signals a forceful intent to preserve the power, plunder and impunity of Cambodia’s elites, and a commitment to the continued silencing of dissenting voices who threaten their supremacy.
Sabina Lawreniuk receives funding from UKRI’s Future Leaders Fellowship scheme.
Britain ended more than 140 years of coal power when it closed its last generator in September.
Coal emits more heat-trapping gas to the atmosphere than any other fossil fuel, so its demise as a source of electricity is an unalloyed good for the climate. Yet, with another announcement a week later, the UK government has helped extend the reign of fossil fuels well into the 21st century.
Less than six months from polling day, the UK Labour party (then the official opposition) scrapped a campaign commitment to provide an annual stimulus of £28 billion (US$36.6 billion) for green industries.
Six billion pounds shy of this figure will now be raised over 25 years, Keir Starmer’s Labour government has revealed, but for a specific purpose: carbon capture and storage.
“The technology works by capturing CO₂ as it is being emitted by a power plant or another polluter, then storing it underground,” says Mark Maslin, a professor of natural sciences at UCL.
The Guardian reports that oil companies BP and Equinor will invest in a cluster of carbon capture and storage installations in Teesside, north-east England. Eni, an Italian oil company, is expected to develop sites in north-west England and north Wales. In each case, emissions will probably be pumped via gas pipes beneath the seabed.
Starmer anointed “a new era” for green jobs when announcing this funding, but experts claim he is actually offering symbolic and strategic support to climate-wrecking energy sources that have dominated for centuries.
“The Climate Change Act mandates the UK should achieve net zero emissions by 2050, yet this will be impossible if carbon capture leads to the UK building new gas power stations instead of wind and solar farms.”
Maslin was one of several scientists who wrote to energy secretary Ed Miliband criticising the plans. As he sees it, the government would not fund these projects if it did not see a future for fossil fuels beyond the middle of this century, by which time scientists have said our interference in the climate must end.
The message is clear: expensive imports of natural gas (essentially methane, a potent greenhouse gas) are here to stay. Even successful deployment of carbon scrubbers at the point of burning this gas would not erase its climate impact, Maslin says, as it leaks at all stages of its production and use.
But Maslin also doubts carbon capture and storage can siphon off the emissions of gas-fired power plants without adding to climate change. This is why climate scientists often describe carbon capture and storage as an unproven technology for decarbonising electricity and heavy industry: most of its applications have been in natural gas processing facilities where CO₂ is extracted for commercial uses.
“The track record of adding carbon capture to power plants is much worse, with the vast majority of projects abandoned,” Maslin explains.
More damning still, almost 80% of all the CO₂ captured by existing installations has been reinjected into oil fields – to pump more oil.
Could carbon capture and storage tech turn natural gas into zero-carbon hydrogen, as some hope? Again, Maslin is dubious. Water is a cleaner source for hydrogen and using this fuel to heat homes or decarbonise factories is a second-rate solution compared with renewable electricity, he says.
The fruits of appeasement
Maslin and his co-signatories say that carbon capture and storage should be limited to reducing emissions from existing fossil power plants or steel furnaces while these emission sources are rapidly phased out.
Marc Hudson at the University of Sussex is a historian of climate politics and policy in Australia, the US, UK and internationally. He has encountered policy proposals for carbon capture dating back to the 1970s and in his view, their overwhelming effect has been to prolong the use of fossil fuels by justifying investment in their expansion.
When trying to explain why rational climate policies like the mass insulation of draughty homes tends to lose out to investment in carbon capture and storage, Nils Markusson, a lecturer in environmental politics at Lancaster University, found something similar:
In other words, appeasing the fossil fuel industry is a proviso of policies drafted to address climate change. This limitation has also infiltrated scientific assessments of the climate.
A new report shows that “overshoot” scenarios – that is, projections of future climate change which accept the global target of 1.5°C will be at least temporarily breached – are rife in mainstream climate science.
This is despite evidence of the permanent damage such a breach would cause – and our doubtful ability to reverse warming once it has exceeded these dangerous levels using speculative carbon removal technology.
There is not enough land or energy to rapidly restore the carbon we have emitted. Oksana Bali/Shutterstock
What has led us here? Comprehending the climate crisis and its solutions on terms favourable to the fossil fuel industry say Wim Carton and Andreas Malm, political ecologists at Lund University.
“Avoiding climate breakdown demands that we bury the fantasy of overshoot-and-return and with it another illusion as well: that the Paris targets can be met without uprooting the status-quo.
“One limit after the other will be broken unless we manage to strand the necessary fossil assets and curtail opportunities for continuing to profit from oil and gas and coal.”
When the Paris agreement on climate change was gavelled into being in December 2015, it briefly looked like that rarest of things: a political victory for climate activists and delegates from the poorest regions of the world that, due to colonisation by today’s wealthy nations, have contributed little to the climate crisis – but stand to suffer its worst ravages.
The world had finally agreed an upper limit for global warming. And in a move that stunned most experts, it had embraced the stretch target of 1.5°C, the boundary that small island states, acutely threatened by sea-level rise, had tirelessly pushed for years.
Or so, at least, it seemed. For soon, the ambitious Paris agreement limit turned out to be not much of a limit at all. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC, the world’s foremost body of climate experts) lent its authority to the 1.5°C temperature target with its 2018 special report, something odd transpired.
Nearly all modelled pathways for limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels involved temporarily transgressing this target. Each still arrived back at 1.5°C eventually (the deadline being the random end point of 2100), but not before first shooting past it.
Scientists responsible for modelling the response of Earth’s climate to greenhouse gas emissions – primarily caused by burning fossil fuels – called these “overshoot” scenarios. They became the dominant path along which mitigating climate change was imagined to proceed, almost as soon as talk of temperature limits emerged.
De facto, what they said was this: staying below a temperature limit is the same as first crossing it and then, a few decades hence, using methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere to dial temperatures back down again.
From some corners of the scientific literature came the assertion that this was nothing more than fantasy. A new study published in Nature has now confirmed this critique. It found that humanity’s ability to restore Earth’s temperature below 1.5°C of warming, after overshooting it, cannot be guaranteed. Many impacts of climate change are essentially irreversible. Those that are might take decades to undo, well beyond the relevant horizon for climate politics. For policy makers of the future, it matters little that temperatures might eventually fall back again; the impacts they will need to plan for are those of the overshoot period itself.
Even if global average surface temperatures are ultimately reversed, climate conditions at regional levels might not necessarily follow the global trend and might end up different from before. Delayed changes in ocean currents, for instance, could mean that the North Atlantic or Southern Ocean continue warming while the rest of the planet does not.
Any losses and damages that accumulate during the overshoot period itself would of course be permanent. For a farmer in Sudan whose livestock perishes in a heatwave that would have been avoided at 1.5°C, it will be scant consolation to know that temperatures are scheduled to return to that level when her children have grown up.
Then there is the dubious feasibility of planetary-scale carbon removal. Planting enough trees or energy crops to make a dent in global temperatures would require whole continents of land. Direct air capture of gigatonnes of carbon would consume prodigious amounts of renewable energy and so compete with decarbonisation. Whose land are we going to use for this? Who will shoulder the burdens for all this excess energy use?
If reversal cannot be guaranteed, then clearly it is irresponsible to sanction a supposedly temporary overshoot of the Paris targets. And yet this is exactly what scientists have done. What compelled them to go down this dangerous route?
Our own book on this topic (Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown, published last week by Verso) offers a history and critique of the idea.
When overshoot scenarios were summoned into being in the early 2000s, the single most important reason was economics. Rapid, near-term emissions cuts were deemed prohibitively costly and so unpalatable. Cost optimisation mandated that they be pushed into the future to the extent possible.
The models for projecting possible mitigation trajectories had these principles written into their code and so for the most part could not compute “low” temperature targets like 1.5 or 2°C. And because modellers could not imagine transgressing the deeply conservative constraints that they worked within, something else had to be transgressed.
One team stumbled upon the idea that large-scale removal of carbon might be possible in the future, and so help reverse climate change. The EU and then the IPCC picked up on it, and before long, overshoot scenarios had colonised the expert literature. Deference to mainstream economics yielded a defence of the political status quo. This in turn translated into reckless experimentation with the climate system. Conservatism or fatalism about society’s capacity for change flipped into extreme adventurism about nature.
Time to bury the time machine
Just as the climate movement scored an important political victory, compelling the world to rally behind an ambitious temperature limit, an influential group of scientists, amplified by the world’s most authoritative scientific body on the subject, effectively helped water it down. When all is said and written about the post-Paris era, this surely should stand as one of its greatest tragedies.
By conjuring up the fantasy of overshoot-and-return, scientists invented a mechanism for delaying climate action and unwittingly lent credibility to those (and they are many) who have no real interest in reigning in emissions here and now; who will seize on any excuse to keep the oil and gas and coal flowing just a little longer.
The findings of this new paper make it perfectly clear: There is no time machine waiting in the wings. Once 1.5°C lies behind us, we must consider that threshold permanently broken.
There then remains only one road to ambitious mitigation of climate change, and no amount of carbon dioxide removal can absolve us of its inconvenient political implications.
Avoiding climate breakdown demands that we bury the fantasy of overshoot-and-return and with it another illusion as well: that the Paris targets can be met without uprooting the status-quo. One limit after the other will be broken unless we manage to strand fossil fuel assets and curtail opportunities for continuing to profit from oil and gas and coal.
We will not mitigate climate change without confronting and defeating fossil fuel interests. We should expect climate scientists to be candid about this.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Wim Carton receives funding for his work on carbon removal from the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas), the Swedish Energy Agency, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF).
Andreas Malm receives funding for his work on carbon removal from the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas).
Thank you, Steve, for that kind introduction and for the opportunity to talk to this group today.1 Let me start by saying that I am saddened by the tragic loss of life, destruction, and damage resulting from Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, and throughout this region. My thoughts are with the people and communities affected. For our part, the Federal Reserve and other federal and state financial regulatory agencies are working with banks and credit unions in the affected area to help make sure they can continue to meet the financial services needs of their communities. Yesterday I shared my historical perspective on the discount window at Davidson College.2 In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established, the discount window was the main tool it used to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. More than 110 years later, the discount window continues to play an important role in supporting the liquidity and stability of the banking system, and the effective implementation of monetary policy. Today I would like to discuss with you how the discount window has evolved in the 21st century, including recent steps the Federal Reserve Board has taken to solicit feedback from the public on discount window operations. Before I address our most recent efforts, however, I will review some important episodes in discount window history that brought us to where we are today. First, I will recount briefly events in the 1980s and early 1990s that provide important context for the reappraisal of the discount window in the early 2000s. Second, I will summarize revisions to the discount window that the Fed made in 2003 and some additional changes made since then. Third, I will describe efforts that the Fed has taken to ensure that the discount window remains effective today, including the request for information that the Board recently issued on operational aspects of the discount window and intraday credit. After completing my discussion of the discount window, I will conclude with my outlook for the U.S. economy. Events before the 2003 Discount Window RevisionsI would like to pick up today where I left off yesterday in my speech at Davidson College: the 1980s and early 1990s. This was a period of widespread problems in the commercial banking sector. Troubled institutions borrowed from the discount window for extended periods of time as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sought to find merger partners or otherwise manage the closure of these institutions. As a result, the discount window became associated strongly with lending to troubled institutions. Healthy banks’ reluctance to borrow from the discount window increased. The greater reluctance to borrow from the discount window made it less effective both as a monetary policy tool and as a crisis-fighting tool.3 This led to a reassessment of the discount window in the early 2000s and to eventual revisions implemented in 2003. A Reassessment of the Discount Window in the Early 2000sThe key challenge in the reassessment of the discount window was to establish a lending program that would not only operate effectively and support monetary policy implementation, but also mitigate moral hazard and provide sufficient controls to minimize risk to Reserve Banks and, ultimately, to American taxpayers. After the reassessment, the Fed implemented several changes aimed to achieve the right balance. The Board replaced the adjustment credit program, which was extended at a below-market rate, with a new type of discount window credit called primary credit. This new type of discount window credit became effective in 2003.4 It is available as a backup source of liquidity to depository institutions in generally sound financial condition at an above-market rate. Making the discount rate a penalty rate is more consistent with the long-standing practice of other major central banks. This feature was intended to reduce the need for administrative pressures based on Reserve Bank staff judgment of inappropriate usage when the discount rate was below market rates. Although those measures effectively limited usage that was deemed inappropriate at the time, they also presented communication challenges regarding when it was appropriate to use the discount window and perpetuated the perception that the Fed discouraged its use. Primary credit is a “no questions asked” facility in which eligible depository institutions are no longer required to have exhausted other sources of funding or be subject to restrictions on the use of the borrowed funds. The Fed initially set the primary credit rate 100 basis points above the target federal funds rate.5 Since March 2020, the Fed has set the primary credit rate at a level equal to the top of the target range for the federal funds rate.6 At the same time primary credit was established, another new program, called secondary credit, replaced the extended credit program. Secondary credit is available to depository institutions that are not eligible for primary credit. It was initially available at an interest rate 50 basis points higher than the primary credit rate, which is the spread in effect today. In contrast to primary credit, extensions under secondary credit are subject to higher collateral discounts and may involve ongoing oversight on the use of funds obtained under the program, reflecting the less-sound condition of secondary credit borrowers. Typically, Reserve Banks review a depository institution’s plan to repay the loan and return to market sources of funding. This two-tiered structure of providing the no-questions-asked primary credit program for healthy depository institutions and the secondary credit program for less-than-healthy depository institutions was designed primarily to instill public confidence in the health of institutions borrowing from the primary credit program and to reduce the reluctance of healthy depository institutions to borrow.7 In addition, having two separate facilities would reinforce the notion that healthy and troubled depository institutions alike should regard borrowing from the Fed as an option in the event of a need for additional funds. In the early years of the switch to the new facilities, there were signs that healthy depository institutions became more willing to borrow from the discount window. For example, some research found that after the 2003 discount window revisions, banks borrowed more from the discount window when the federal funds rate spiked than they had previously.8 This finding suggests that the redesign of the discount window was effective in reducing banks’ reluctance to borrow. As a result, the discount window may have been more effective in placing a ceiling on short-term funding rates, aiding the implementation of monetary policy, and serving as a liquidity tool when needed. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that it is difficult to measure reluctance to borrow from the discount window. When the interest rate on primary credit is above the target federal funds rate and the federal funds rate is close to its target, the aggregate volume of primary credit is expected to be low. In other words, a low average level of discount window borrowing does not necessarily mean that there is a reluctance to borrow; instead, it could simply reflect a situation in which depository institutions do not currently need to borrow. In addition, when there is an abundance of liquidity in the banking system, as is the case in the current ample-reserves monetary policy regime, depository institutions may have less need to obtain additional liquidity via the discount window. Again, this does not necessarily mean that there is a reluctance to borrow. Conversely, the presence of discount window borrowing does not necessarily reflect the absence of a reluctance to borrow. It could be the case that, although aggregate usage increases, there are still some depository institutions that are willing to pay well above the primary credit rate even when they could have borrowed readily from the discount window. For these reasons, it is important that we complement data with market outreach information to assess the effectiveness of the discount window. Changes and Challenges since the Introduction of Primary and Secondary CreditPrimary and secondary credit exist today, but some changes have been made to primary credit since its inception. For example, although the discount window was used extensively and played an important role in the emergency measures taken during the financial crisis of 2007–09, some depository institutions during this period still were willing to borrow funds from the market at rates above the discount rate.9 This suggested that there was a reluctance to borrow before the crisis, and that reluctance appeared to grow over the course of the crisis. To promote the restoration of orderly conditions in financial markets and provide depository institutions with greater assurance about the cost and availability of funding, the Board approved temporary changes to its primary credit discount window facility during the crisis.10 In addition, in late 2007, the Board established the Term Auction Facility (TAF).11 Concerns about lending to troubled depository institutions reemerged after the 2007–09 financial crisis. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in 2010, Congress required the Fed to publish detailed individual institution borrowing data with a two-year lag.12 This action was intended to enhance the transparency and accountability of Federal Reserve lending while still preserving a measure of confidentiality to avoid discouraging depository institutions from borrowing. More recently, in March 2020, the Fed announced changes to the provision of primary credit that were intended to encourage depository institutions to use the discount window to meet demands for credit from households and businesses in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes included setting the primary credit rate at a level equal to the top of the federal funds target range—a step that enhanced the ability of the discount window to support trading within the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) target range for the federal funds rate—and communicating the terms of borrowing as 90 days, prepayable and renewable on a daily basis. To further encourage depository institutions to use the discount window, the Fed also made changes to its reporting of Reserve Bank–level aggregate weekly discount window borrowing. It consolidated amounts previously reported as “loans,” which include discount window borrowing, into a broader category of assets.13 The changes made in 2020 remain in effect. During and after the spring 2023 stress events, the discount window again played an important role in supporting both monetary policy and financial stability. Depository institutions that came under severe stress turned to the discount window. The discount window also served an important role in providing ready access to funding, especially for depository institutions experiencing spillovers from the bank failures. To further ensure that depository institutions had the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors, the Board announced the creation of a new emergency program, the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP). Although the BTFP was established pursuant to the Board’s emergency lending authority in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, the BTFP used the discount window infrastructure to lend to eligible depository institution borrowers.14 By relying on the existing discount window infrastructure, the BTFP was able to begin operating right away. The program ceased extending new loans on March 11, 2024, as scheduled. Today the discount window continues to be an effective tool, but it is important to acknowledge that economic and banking conditions continue to evolve. Since the 2003 discount window reassessment, we have seen an increased focus on liquidity in banking regulation, including the advent of quantitative liquidity requirements for large banking organizations; technological changes in the banking system; a general trend toward faster and 24-7-365 payment systems; changes in the composition and posture of Federal Home Loan Bank lending; and the move to an ample-reserves monetary policy implementation regime. In light of these developments, the Federal Reserve System has taken important steps to ensure that the discount window performs its functions successfully in the 21st-century economy. For example, last year the Board, along with the other federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration, issued guidance on contingency funding plans that encouraged depository institutions to be ready to borrow from the discount window.15 This includes taking steps to establish borrowing relationships with the Federal Reserve, such as providing certain legal documentation and ensuring that collateral to secure loans is ready to pledge. In connection with interagency initiatives, Reserve Banks have conducted outreach to depository institutions and made efforts to guide them in using the discount window. Data suggest that this encouragement is working. By the end of 2023, 3,900 banks, or roughly 80 percent of all banks, had completed the legal documentation required to borrow from the discount window.16 Of those, nearly 2,000 banks had pledged collateral, with an aggregate lendable value of over $2.6 trillion after applying appropriate discounts. These figures are notably above their levels at the end of 2021 and 2022. Although I am pleased to see the improvements in discount window readiness statistics, continued outreach is still important. To that effect, this summer, Federal Reserve Banks hosted an Ask the Fed® session to discuss the purpose of the discount window, its facilities, and recommendations for depository institutions on how to prepare to borrow from the Fed.17 Additionally, the Federal Reserve System has made important investments to enhance the technology that supports discount window activities. Earlier this year, the System launched Discount Window Direct, which is an online portal for depository institutions to request and prepay loans as well as securely message their local Reserve Bank.18 Discount Window Direct generally is accessible 24 hours a day. We are actively encouraging the use of Discount Window Direct. Seeking Feedback on the Discount WindowTo complement our efforts to enhance discount window operations, the Federal Reserve Board recently announced that it is collecting feedback from the public on operational frictions associated with the discount window and intraday credit through the issuance of a request for information. As some of you may know, a request for information is a formal document through which a government agency solicits feedback. Members of the public can submit comments in response to the request for information until December 9, 2024.19 The Board requests input on various discount window and intraday credit operational practices, such as the process for requesting, receiving, and repaying discount window loans as well as Reserve Bank discount window and intraday credit communications practices. Through the request for information, the Board hopes to gain further insight into the operational aspects that are the most costly or burdensome for depository institutions. This will help the Fed consider further improvements to promote efficiency and reduce burden on depository institutions. Ultimately, the Fed’s goal is to build on the current discount window operations and processes so that the discount window will continue to provide ready access to funding against a wide range of collateral in the future. I encourage members of the public to submit comments on the request for information, and I look forward to considering the feedback that we receive. Economic OutlookBefore concluding, let me share with you a summary of my outlook for the U.S. economy, as I did yesterday with the audience at Davidson. Economic activity continues to grow at a solid pace. Inflation has eased substantially. The labor market has cooled from its formerly overheated state. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) prices rose 2.2 percent over the 12 months ending in August, well down from 6.5 percent two years earlier. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.7 percent, compared with 5.2 percent two years earlier. Our restrictive monetary policy stance played a role in restraining demand and in keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored, as reflected in a broad range of inflation surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, as well as measures from financial markets. Inflation is now much closer to the FOMC’s 2 percent objective. I expect that we will continue to make progress toward that goal. While, overall, the economy continues to grow at a solid pace, the labor market has modestly cooled. Employers added an average of 186,000 jobs per month during July through September, a slower pace than seen early this year. The unemployment rate now stands at 4.1 percent, up from 3.8 percent in September 2023. Meanwhile, job openings declined by about 4 million since their peak in March 2022. The good news is that the rise in unemployment has been limited and gradual, and the level of unemployment remains historically low. Even so, the cooling in the labor market is noticeable. Congress mandated the Fed to pursue maximum employment and price stability. The balance of risks to our two mandates has changed—as risks to inflation have diminished and risks to employment have risen, these risks have been brought roughly into balance. The FOMC has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward our 2 percent goal. To maintain the strength of the labor market, my FOMC colleagues and I recalibrated our policy stance last month, lowering our policy interest rate by 1/2 percentage point. Looking ahead, I will carefully watch incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks when considering additional adjustments to the federal funds target range, our primary tool for adjusting the stance of monetary policy. My approach to monetary policymaking is to make decisions meeting by meeting. As the economy evolves, I will continue to update my thinking about policy to best promote maximum employment and price stability. Thank you. ReferencesArtuç, Erhan, and Selva Demiralp (2010). “Provision of Liquidity through the Primary Credit Facility during the Financial Crisis: A Structural Analysis,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Economic Policy Review, vol. 16 (August), p. 43–53. Bernanke, Ben S. (2009a). “The Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet,” speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 2009 Credit Markets Symposium, Charlotte, N.C., April 3. ——— (2009b). “The Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet: An Update,” speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Board Conference on Key Developments in Monetary Policy, Washington, October 8. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2002a). “Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks; Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions,” final rule, technical amendment (Docket Nos. R-1123 and R-1134), Federal Register, vol. 67 (November 7), pp. 67777–87. ——— (2002b). “Publication of Final Rule Amending Regulation A (Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks),” press release, October 31. ——— (2020). “Federal Reserve Actions to Support the Flow of Credit to Households and Businesses,” press release, March 15. ——— (2023). “Federal Reserve Board Announces It Will Make Available Additional Funding to Eligible Depository Institutions to Help Assure Banks Have the Ability to Meet the Needs of All Their Depositors,” press release, March 12. ——— (2024a). “Bank Term Funding Program: Frequently Asked Questions (PDF),” updated January 24. ——— (2024b). “Request for Information and Comment on Operational Aspects of Federal Reserve Bank Extensions of Discount Window and Intraday Credit,” request for information and comment (Docket No. OP-1838), Federal Register, vol. 89 (September 10), pp. 73415–18. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2023). “Agencies Update Guidance on Liquidity Risks and Contingency Planning,” joint press release, July 28. Clouse, James A. (1994). “Recent Developments in Discount Window Policy (PDF),” Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 80 (November), pp. 965–77. Jefferson, Philip N. (2024). “A History of the Fed’s Discount Window: 1913-2000,” speech delivered at Davidson College, Davidson, N.C., October 8. Madigan, Brian F. (2009). “Bagehot’s Dictum in Practice: Formulating and Implementing Policies to Combat the Financial Crisis,” speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Annual Economic Symposium, Jackson Hole, Wyo., August 21.
1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text 2. See Jefferson (2024). Return to text 3. For more details about this period, see Clouse (1994). In response to the wave of depository institution failures, Congress placed legal limitations on Federal Reserve lending to troubled institutions. Specifically, section 142 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) amended section 10B of the Federal Reserve Act to place restraints on discount window lending to undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized insured depository institutions. FDICIA also imposed liability on the Board of Governors for excess losses incurred by the FDIC that are attributable to lending beyond those limits. The provisions of FDICIA were intended to reduce moral hazard in the banking system and limit taxpayer losses. Return to text 4. For more details, see the October 31, 2002, Federal Reserve press release (Board of Governors, 2002b) and the final rule implementing the changes (Board of Governors, 2002a). Return to text 5. In 2003, when primary credit was implemented, there was a single federal funds target rate. The Federal Open Market Committee adopted a federal funds target range on December 16, 2008. Return to text 6. For details on the change to the rate spread announced in March 2020, see the press release (Board of Governors, 2020). As will be discussed in greater detail later, before 2020, the spread between the primary credit rate and the target federal funds rate (or top of the target range) had changed a few times to address economic conditions during the 2007–09 financial crisis and the subsequent recovery. Return to text 7. This design feature also would help Reserve Banks manage risk more easily by establishing a standardized approach and risk controls when lending through a facility reserved for troubled depository institutions. Loans to troubled depository institutions entail more risk to the lending Reserve Bank, and depository institutions that are undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized are subject to lending limitations under FDICIA. Return to text 8. See Artuç and Demiralp (2010). Return to text 9. See Bernanke (2009a) and Madigan (2009) for a retrospective that elaborates on some of the emergency measures taken during the 2007–09 financial crisis and the reasoning for discount window rate changes during the financial crisis. Return to text 10. Throughout this crisis, the Board approved numerous reductions in the primary credit rate and narrowed the spread between the primary credit rate and the target federal funds rate twice. With the narrowing of the spread in August 2007 from 100 basis points to 50 basis points and in March 2008 to 25 basis points, the Board announced that the maximum term for primary credit loans would be extended, first to 30 days and then to 90 days, respectively. As economic conditions improved, in 2010, the Board increased the spread between the primary credit rate and the target federal funds rate to 50 basis points and shortened the maximum term for primary credit loans to overnight. Return to text 11. The TAF provided fixed quantities of term credit to depository institutions through an auction mechanism and seemed to have largely addressed banks’ concern that borrowing from the Federal Reserve would imply weakness. According to Bernanke (2009b, paragraph 7), this was “partly because the sizable number of borrowers provides a greater assurance of anonymity, and possibly also because the three-day period between the auction and auction settlement suggests that the facility’s users are not using it to meet acute funding needs on a particular day.” Return to text 12. See section 1103 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act. Return to text 13. The Board’s H.4.1 statistical release, “Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks,” is published weekly. It presents a balance sheet for each Federal Reserve Bank, a consolidated balance sheet for all 12 Reserve Banks, an associated statement that lists the factors affecting reserve balances of depository institutions, and several other tables presenting information on the assets, liabilities, and commitments of the Federal Reserve Banks. For additional details on the consolidation of “loans” into a broader category of assets, see the March 19, 2020, H.4.1 announcement, available on the Board’s website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20200319. Return to text 14. As with the discount window, an eligible institution participated in the BTFP through its local Reserve Bank. The legal agreements and process for pledging securities in the BTFP also relied on those used in discount window lending. Nevertheless, the BTFP differed from the discount window in various ways, including the term of lending, scope of eligible collateral, collateral valuation, and interest rate. For more information on the differences between the BTFP and the discount window, see the response to question A.3 in Board of Governors (2024a, p. 3). For additional details on the BTFP, see the March 12, 2023, press release (Board of Governors, 2023). Return to text 15. See Board of Governors and others (2023). Return to text 16. The statistics in this paragraph are available on the Board’s website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/discount-window-readiness.htm. Return to text 17. More information on Ask the Fed is available on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’s website at https://bsr.stlouisfed.org/askthefed/Auth/Logon. Return to text 18. Additional details on Discount Window Direct can be found on the Federal Reserve Bank Services website at https://www.frbservices.org/central-bank/lending-central. Return to text 19. See the information on discount window operations in section II.A of Board of Governors (2024b). Return to text
Satellite-based data offers a broad view of particulate air pollution patterns across a major West Coast e-commerce hub. As goods of all shapes and sizes journey from factory to doorstep, chances are they’ve stopped at a warehouse along the way — likely several of them. The sprawling structures are waypoints in the logistics networks that make e-commerce possible. Yet the convenience comes with tradeoffs, as illustrated in a recent NASA-funded study. Published in the journal GeoHealth, the research analyzes patterns of particulate pollution in Southern California and found that ZIP codes with more or larger warehouses had higher levels of contaminants over time than those with fewer or smaller warehouses. Researchers focused on particulate pollution, choosing Southern California because it is a major distribution hub for goods: Its ports handle 40% of cargo containers entering the country. The buildings themselves are not the major particulate sources. Rather, it’s the diesel trucks that pick up and drop off goods, emitting exhaust containing toxic particles called PM2.5. At 2.5 micrometers or less, these pollutants can be inhaled into the lungs and absorbed into the bloodstream. Although atmospheric concentrations are typically so small they’re measured in millionths of a gram per cubic meter, the authors caution that there’s no safe exposure level for PM2.5. “Any increase in concentration causes some health damage,” said co-author Yang Liu, an environmental health researcher at Emory University in Atlanta. “But if you can curb pollution, there will be a measurable health benefit.”
Growing Air Quality Research Particulate pollution has been linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, some cancers, and adverse birth outcomes, including premature birth and low infant birth weight. The new study is part of a broader effort funded by the NASA Health and Air Quality Applied Sciences Team to use satellite data to understand how air pollution disproportionately affects underserved communities. As the e-commerce boom of recent decades has spurred warehouse construction, pollution in nearby neighborhoods has become a growing area for research. New structures have often sprouted on relatively inexpensive land, which tends to be home to low-income or minority populations who bear the brunt of the poor air quality, Liu said. Another recent NASA-funded study analyzed satellite-derived nitrogen dioxide (NO2) measurements around 150,000 United States warehouses. It found that concentrations of the gas, which is a diesel byproduct and respiratory irritant, were about 20% higher near warehouses. Distribution Hub For the GeoHealth paper, scientists drew on previously generated datasets of PM2.5 from 2000 to 2018 and elemental carbon, a type of PM2.5 in diesel emissions, from 2000 to 2019. The data came from models based on satellite observations, including some from NASA’s MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) instruments. The researchers also mined a real estate database for the square footage as well as the number of loading docks and parking spaces at nearly 11,000 warehouses across portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and all of Orange County. They found that warehouse capacity correlated with pollution. ZIP codes in the 75th percentile of warehouse square footage had 0.16 micrograms per cubic meter more PM2.5 and 0.021 micrograms per cubic meter more elemental carbon than those in the 25th percentile. Similarly, ZIP codes in the 75th percentile of number of loading docks had 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter more PM2.5 and 0.014 micrograms per cubic meter more elemental carbon than those in the 25th percentile. And ZIP codes in the 75th percentile of truck parking spaces had 0.21 micrograms per cubic meter more PM2.5 and 0.021 micrograms per cubic meter more elemental carbon than those in the 25th percentile. “We found that warehouses are associated with PM2.5 and elemental carbon,” said lead author Binyu Yang, an Emory environmental health doctoral student. Although particulate pollution fell from 2000 to 2019 due to stricter emissions standards, the concentrations in ZIP codes with warehouses remained consistently higher than for other areas. Researchers also found that the gaps widened in the holiday shopping season, up to 4 micrograms per cubic meter — “a significant difference,” Liu said. Satellites Provide Big Picture Satellite observations, the researchers said, were essential because they provided a continuous map of pollution, including pockets not covered by ground-based instruments. It’s the same motivation behind NASA’s TEMPO (Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution) mission, which launched in April 2023 and measures air pollution hourly during daylight over North America. The release of TEMPO’s first maps showed higher concentrations of NO2 around cities and highways. Meanwhile, NASA and the Italian Space Agency are collaborating to launch the MAIA (Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols) in 2026. It will be the first NASA satellite mission whose primary goal is to study health effects of particulate pollution while distinguishing between PM2.5 types.“This mission will help air quality managers and policymakers conceive more targeted pollution strategies,” said Sina Hasheminassab, a co-author and science systems engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. Hasheminassab, like Liu, is a member of the MAIA science team. News Media Contacts Andrew Wang / Jane J. LeeJet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.626-379-6874 / 818-354-0307andrew.wang@jpl.nasa.gov / jane.j.lee@jpl.nasa.gov 2024-134
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif)
Washington, DC – United States Representative Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to improve security and military readiness between the United States and Abraham Accords nations. The Learning Integrated National Knowledge (LINK) Act would connect strategic, operational, and tactical senior commanders through an exchange program to foster greater integration and alignment.
This legislation was introduced as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East due to the actions by Iran and Iranian-backed proxies and follows the fourth anniversary of the historic Abraham Accords. Leading this legislation alongside Rep. Panetta are Reps. Zach Nunn (IA-03), Brad Schneider (IL-10), Ann Wagner (MO-02), David Trone (MD-06), and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05). Companion legislation has been introduced by Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) in the Senate.
Iran and its proxy forces, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, continue to conduct terrorist operations across the Middle East, from firing missiles within Lebanon, to attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea. Through the establishment of a subject matter expert exchange program, American senior military officials will be able to bolster capabilities and deepen cooperationto enable the U.S. and its allies to respond to continuing and unforeseen aggression more effectively.
“The increasingly aggressive actions by Iran and its terrorist proxies threaten the stability, security, and economy of the broader Middle East,” said Rep. Panetta. “A military expert exchange program between Abraham Accords countries will ensure leaders are coordinating an integrated response to counter these malign activities in the region. These partnerships are vital to our efforts to further strengthen the diplomatic, defense, and economic relationships between the United States, Israel, and our Arab partners.”
“The Iranian Regime and its proxies cannot be left unchecked,” said Rep. Nunn. “As Israel continues to withstand attacks from Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, now is the time to bring together the best and brightest military minds within the Abraham Accords. This partnership will bring a more secure and peaceful Middle East.”
“The combined efforts last week by Israel, the United States, and other allies to intercept nearly 200 Iranian ballistic missiles before they could cause unimaginable destruction demonstrates the importance of strengthening the coordination between CENTCOM and our allies,” said Rep. Schneider. “As Iran and its proxies—including Hezbollah and the Houthis—continue to escalate threats to Israel, and the entire Middle East, it is critical that our partners have access to experienced military experts who can offer sound guidance during these escalations. Through the LINK Act, we are strengthening our ties with Abraham Accords nations, ensuring both Israel and our Arab allies have the expert support needed to address these evolving threats and maintain regional security.”
“Iran’s unprecedented missile attack on Israel on October 1 shows the Ayatollah is bent on Israel’s destruction and is willing to drag the region into war to accomplish its violent agenda,” said Rep. Wagner. “As Iran continues to attack Israel directly and through its proxies, regional security cooperation remains vital to stability in the Middle East—and the defense of American allies against aggression. My work with colleagues in the Abraham Accords Caucus has shown me how important it is to have our experts work closely with our partners and allies in the region to develop sound strategies and tackle threats together. The ongoing instability and fighting in the region demand a more effective path forward to address threats from dictatorial governments and terrorists and ensure the safety of our own citizens at home and abroad. This bill will ensure our partners in the Middle East support one another as we work towards that goal.”
“Now more than ever, leaders in the Middle East and around the world must work together against growing threats, including Iran,” said Rep. Trone. “With that goal in mind, it is imperative that we continue to share vital resources and encourage international cooperation to better equip our intelligence and military operations. With the LINK Act, we’re doing just that.”
“Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel was an escalation that threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into chaos. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen military coordination and defense planning between Abraham Accords countries to safeguard against these increasingly aggressive attacks by Iran and its terrorist proxies,” said Rep. McMorris Rodgers. “The LINK Act is a critical bipartisan effort to ensure military experts are in place to protect the diplomatic and economic relationships we’ve worked so hard to promote, while showing the world that we unequivocally stand with Israel.”
This legislation has been included in the House and Senate versions of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act, building upon the work of the Armed Services Committee to integrate air and missile defense capabilities, maritime domain awareness, cyber and AI readiness, and space satellites to deter Iranian aggression.
Kamala Harris appears to have drastically changed her media strategy for the final few weeks of the US election race. From largely avoiding media interviews, she has begun embracing them.
The Democratic presidential candidate demonstrated she was a serious and consensus-building leader on 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker. She told amusing anecdotes and drank a beer on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert; gave fast, snappy returns on The Howard Stern Show; and for 40 minutes talked women’s rights, domestic violence and reproductive health on the high-profile Call Her Daddy podcast.
With less than a month to go until the presidential election, Harris is trying to hit all demographics with her media message campaign. She appeared to be most at home, or “real”, on Call her Daddy with Alex Cooper, where she talked about the lessons she’d learned from her mother, and how an abused school friend helped ignite her desire to fight for justice for the vulnerable.
The podcast, which focuses on women’s issues, has 5 million listeners. Harris already leads the voting among women by a majority of 55% to former president Donald Trump’s 43%, according to a MaristPoll conducted last month in swing state Pennsylvania.
More significant was the CBS 60 Minutes interview. This show, which averages 8.4 million viewers, has been a must for presidential candidates to appear on for the last half century.
The first controversy came a week before the broadcast when Trump pulled out, with his team allegedly complaining the programme would fact-check the interview. Trump also claimed he needed an apology from CBS over disputed facts related to his 2020 interview, specifically about Hunter Biden’s laptop. No apology was forthcoming.
The former president’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, alleged Trump had never actually confirmed the interview, calling it “fake news”. CBS reporter Scott Pelley, who was due to do the Trump interview, was scathing about the “shifting explanations” that had been given for his no-show.
In advance of Harris’s 60 Minutes interview, I asked Nick Bryant, author of The Forever War: America’s Unending Conflict with Itself, why he thought Trump had pulled out. “Scott Pelley is a seasoned pro,” Bryant replied. “On abortion, on January 6th, on accepting the 2020 result, he could skewer Trump. In a cost-benefit analysis, Trump has more to lose from a 60 Minutes interview than gain.”
Harris, on the other hand, had all to gain because, despite a clear win in the debate against Trump, she has stayed at relatively low visibility. During what was a fairly tough interview, she was quizzed on America’s inability to rein in Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, how she would fund her economic policies, how her administration would handle Ukraine, and whether or not she had flip-flopped on policies about fracking, immigration and Medicare.
The world is watching as the US election campaign unfolds. Sign up to join us at a special Conversation event on October 17. Expert panellists – Thomas Gift, Natasha Lindstaedt and Inderjeet Parmar – will discuss the upcoming election and its possible fallout.
Her answer regarding changing policies was not to deny this, as she had previously, but to say that over the past four years of being vice-president, she had travelled the country “listening to folks and seeking what is possible in terms of common ground. I believe in building consensus.” This strong answer managed to differentiate her starkly from her opponent’s more divisive approach.
Bryant believed that Harris’s lack of interviews before this latest round was worrying, because “she is not match fit” and her previous answers regarding the economy had been “tossed-salad like” and “strangely inarticulate”.
This time around, it wasn’t the economy that tripped Harris up, but answers about Israel and Netanyahu. After the interview, Fox News and the Trump campaign were quick to allege that an answer on Israel broadcast in the 60 Minutes trailer was different to the answer broadcast during the programme.
They argued that, once again, Harris had given a chaotic response in the trailer, while the answer in the programme was much more considered and neatly delivered. Trump’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, asked: “Why did 60 Minutes choose not to air Kamala’s full word salad, and what else did they choose not to air?” So far, there has been no comment from 60 Minutes.
Last-ditch swerves
The other factor that has dogged the Harris-Walz ticket is the claim that Governor Tim Walz had inserted himself, Walter Mitty-like, into being in Beijing at the time of the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.
He was first asked about this during the vice-presidential debate, where he answered that he was a “knucklehead” at times who had misspoken. Pressed on this in his part of Monday’s 60 Minutes interview, Walz said that people would understand the difference between him, who “got the date wrong”, and “a pathological liar like Donald Trump”.
Harris on 60 Minutes.
After Trump’s disastrous performance in the September debate with Harris, he refused a second one. This can be attributed to his answers resulting in countless memes of him declaring erroneously that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s cats and dogs. Social media subsequently exploded in a similar way to Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance’s earlier claims that the country was being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies”.
And then Melania Trump threw a curve ball into the mix. Her autobiography, published this week, sets out her position on abortion, which conflicts with that of evangelic Republicans – a big Trump support base. “Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body,” she writes. “I have carried this belief with me my entire adult life”.
In these final weeks of campaigning, with the two sides so close in the polls, the gloves seem to have come off and we can expect further spats in the media. Once again, the power of misinformation and disinformation to sow conflict will continue to unfold on social media – especially now that X’s owner Elon Musk is openly campaigning, and jumping, in support of a Trump win.
Colleen Murrell received a grant from Ireland’s media regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, for researching and writing the Reuters Digital News Report Ireland (2020-24).
HOUSTON, Oct. 09, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Apache Corporation, a subsidiary of APA Corporation (Nasdaq: APA), today announced the donation of more than 134,000 trees to 52 nonprofit partner organizations through the annual Apache Corporation Tree Grant Program. Since 2005, over 5 million trees have been granted to more than 1,000 nonprofit partners and government agencies.
“Apache’s spirit of ingenuity has been an important driver of our tree grant program since its founding 19 years ago, emphasizing our unwavering commitment to environmental stewardship,” said John J. Christmann IV, the company’s chief executive officer. “Trees are essential to the conservation, beautification and longevity of a thriving society, providing cleaner air, water filtration and green spaces for the benefit of communities. We are honored to partner with these organizations as we continue to responsibly meet the world’s oil and gas needs.”
A committee comprising members of the company’s community partnerships, compliance and environmental, health and safety, and government affairs departments provides guidance for the program’s direction and selection process. Organizations are chosen based on geographic location, potential for environmental impact, and opportunities for community engagement.
U.S. tree grant recipients for the 2024-25 planting season represent an array of urban areas, rural communities and wildlife preservations that cover diverse and critical ecosystems throughout Texas, New Mexico and Louisiana. Harris County Precinct 4, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) and Big Bend Conservation Alliance (BBCA) are three key partners of the program, benefiting numerous habitats and bettering the quality of life for nearby communities.
Harris County Precinct 4, represented by commissioner Lesley Briones, is part of the largest county in Texas, maintaining 55 parks and more than 14,000 acres of green space for its 1.2 million residents.
“I am grateful for Apache Corporation’s partnership helping Harris County protect our most vulnerable communities,” Briones said. “Within Harris County Precinct 4, areas such as Alief and Gulfton experience temperatures that are 10 to 17 degrees hotter than other neighborhoods. The Apache Corporation tree grant will be key in expanding the tree canopy, providing more shade, lowering temperatures and addressing the urban heat island effect. Together, we will be advancing wellness and resiliency.”
Additionally, Harris County Precinct 3 covers 15,000 acres of greenspace that includes 72 parks and nature centers across 6,800 lane miles across the Greater Houston area from Cypress to Baytown. Planting trees supports the goals of Precinct 3’s parks and trails masterplan to increase shade and heat relief, and restore natural habitats for birds and wildlife, help control erosion, and provide welcoming outdoor spaces for everyone to enjoy.
“One of the hallmarks of Precinct 3 has always been parks, trails, and roadways lined with beautiful trees,” said Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey. “Thank you to Apache Corporation for their ongoing support over the years to place more trees throughout not only our precinct, but throughout our region, as they recognize the unlimited benefits this feature brings to communities.”
Since 1951, TPWD has provided outdoor recreational opportunities by managing and protecting wildlife, parklands and historic areas that are essential to the natural and cultural resources of Texas.
“We are happy to be receiving trees at several of our sites located throughout the state and in different divisions of TPWD, which include state parks, wildlife management areas, fish hatcheries, Austin headquarters, and the game warden training center,” said TPWD sustainability manager Cate McClendon. “The process of coordinating tree delivery has gone smoothly this year with all sites already scheduled for October.”
In Alpine, Texas, BBCA is a nonprofit organization that serves local wildlife by nurturing relationships within shared environments to create inclusive, equitable and just approaches to conservation with communities in the region.
“Apache’s Tree Grant Program has given our organization the chance to connect with Big Bend’s remote and isolated communities, helping bring tree canopy to towns that regularly experience the effects of extreme heat in the Chihuahuan Desert,” said BBCA executive director Shelley Bernstein. “We’ve been able to plant hundreds of native, drought-tolerant species for residents through outreach partnerships at food pantries, libraries, social service agencies, schools and subsidized housing. The program has helped us realize our mission of inclusive, equitable, and just approaches to conservation in Far West Texas.”
These organizations represent nonprofits and government agencies of varying scales, geographic regions and demographics that the tree grant program supports, with a full list of this year’s recipients listed below.
2024 Grant Recipients:
LOUISIANA
BREC – Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL)
Iberia Soil & Water Conservation District
Keep Hammond Beautiful
Moncus Park
NOLA Tree Project
Pearl River-Honey Island Swamp Museum & Research Center
Pontchartrain Conservancy
Proud Louisiana c/o Parish Proud
St. Mary Soil & Water Conservation District
Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government
Woodlands Conservancy
NEW MEXICO
City of Las Cruces
Hermit’s Peak Watershed Alliance
La Cosecha Community Supported Agriculture
Tree New Mexico
TEXAS
Big Bend Conservation Alliance
Big Lake Economic Development Corp
Brazoria County Master Gardener Association
Bryan Noon Lions Club
Buffalo Bayou Partnership
City of Alpine
City of Andrews
City of Boerne
City of Edinburg
City of Fort Stockton-Keep Historic Fort Stockton Beautiful
City of Lubbock
City of McAllen
City of Pasadena Parks and Recreation
City of Seabrook
Exploration Green Conservancy
Fort Stockton Historical Society
Galveston Island Tree Conservancy
Harris County Precinct 3
Harris County Precinct 4
Hermann Park Conservancy
Houston Botanic Garden
Houston Parks & Recreation Department
Houston Wilderness
Keep Laredo Beautiful
Keep San Angelo Beautiful
Keep Sugar Land Beautiful
KSA Parks Foundation – Trees for Kingwood
Missouri City Green
Native Plant Society of Texas, Fredericksburg Chapter
Native Plant Society of Texas, Kerville Chapter
Scenic Texas, Inc.
Texas Blossoms
Texas Longleaf Team
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (4 different projects; see pdf)
Apache Corporation a wholly owned subsidiary of APA Corporation (Nasdaq: APA), is an oil and gas exploration and production company with operations in the United States, Egypt and the United Kingdom. Apache’s parent corporation, APA Corporation, posts announcements, operational updates, investor information and press releases on its website, http://www.apacorp.com.
About Apache Corporation Tree Grant Program
Founded in 2005, the Apache Corporation Tree Grant Program is a philanthropic initiative of Apache Corporation that donates trees to nonprofits and government entities in the company’s operational areas. In 2023, the program was expanded to Scotland, with the donation of 3,600 trees to several non-profit organizations. The program focuses on grants that support large-scale conservation, protection of habitats for wildlife and native species, as well as the restoration and enhancement of public greenspaces. This award-winning environmental stewardship initiative has provided more than 5 million trees to over 900 to qualified partners in the United States. In addition to the development and improvement of public parks and greenspaces, community partners often request trees to support a broad range of conservation efforts, including preservation of natural habitats and reforestation. To learn more about the program, visit http://www.apachelovestrees.com
FLORENCE, Ky., Oct. 09, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Lendmark Financial Services (Lendmark), a leading provider of household credit and consumer loan solutions, continues to expand its Kentucky footprint, opening a new branch in Florence.
The branch is located at 212 Mount Zion Road and is expected to serve hundreds of customers in its first year. Elaine Gambill, who serves as the branch manager, will be responsible for administration of all daily operations. These include building personal relationships with customers and integrating into the community to ensure area residents receive a superior level of individualized loan services that meet their unique financial needs.
“Planned and unplanned life events still happen, causing many consumers to look for financial resources to meet these needs,” said EJ Ryan, Vice President of Branch Operations at Lendmark. “Our team will be laser focused on serving the Florence community, delivering personalized and convenient household credit solutions that meet their respective financial needs.”
In addition to serving consumers directly, Lendmark provides financing solutions for thousands of retailers and independent auto dealerships, allowing these businesses’ customers to obtain Lendmark financing. Local businesses that are interested in partnering with Lendmark to provide financing solutions for their customers should visit the branch or call 859-474-5598.
Lendmark’s ‘Climb to Cure’ is its signature cause-related initiative. The company has committed to raising $10 million by 2025 to mark its 10-year anniversary partnering with CURE Childhood Cancer. So far, Lendmark’s employees, partners and customers have raised $8.83 million to support CURE, an Atlanta-based nonprofit dedicated to funding targeted pediatric cancer research that is utilized nationwide.
Lendmark customers can participate by donating $1 when closing their loan. Lendmark matches the donation.
About Lendmark Financial Services Lendmark Financial Services (Lendmark) provides personal and household credit and loan solutions to consumers. Founded in 1996, Lendmark strives to be the lender, employer, and partner of choice by protecting household wealth, offering stability and helping consumers meet both planned and unplanned life events through affordable loan offerings. Today, Lendmark operates more than 515 branches in 22 states across the country, providing personalized services to customers and retail business partners with every transaction. Lendmark is headquartered in Lawrenceville, Ga. For more information, visit http://www.lendmarkfinancial.com.
Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Angus King (I-Maine) announced today that the cities of Portland and Lewiston have been awarded grant funding to help protect children from lead poisoning. The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction (LHR) grant program awards, totaling $11,117,960, will help improve the health of Maine communities by fixing older housing and preserving affordable housing units that pose a lead hazard — such as the use of lead paint, more common in homes built before 1960. Additionally, this grant targets housing where children less than six years of age live.
“The majority of Maine’s housing stock was built prior to 1978, the year that lead-based paint was banned, which has resulted in our state having one of the highest levels of lead paint contamination in the country,” said Senator Collins. “This federal investment in lead hazard abatement will increase the safety of housing for families in Portland and Lewiston, helping to further alleviate this public health threat.”
“Lead exposure and poisoning can pose extreme health risks, especially for young children who are still growing and developing,” said Senator King. “Even small amounts of lead from paint chips and flakes can build up in the body and cause serious health problems. Families should be focused on helping their children grow and thrive, not worried about whether or not their house is hazardous. This robust funding will help more Maine families and children have a healthy and safe place to call home.”
The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program is funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition to the LHR program, HUD also offers the Healthy Homes Supplemental funding that is available to further bolster lead-based paint hazard prevention and control.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03)
LOWELL, MA – Yesterday, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03) and State Representative Jon Zlotnik were joined by local leaders in Gardner to highlight $225,000 in federal and state funding they secured to support GAAMHA’s mental health and addiction programs.
“For more than 50 years, GAAMHA has supported individuals and families here in Gardner and across the region through battles with addiction and mental health challenges, regardless of their income. Their holistic approach to treatment and recovery has helped so many not just get back on their feet, but also develop the skills to get ahead,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “Evergreen Grove is a very special place, and I’m proud of my work with State Representative Zlotnik to deliver significant federal and state funds to support the outstanding work happening here.”
“Funding that we an provide for these programs is incredibly important,” said State Representative Zlotnik. “GAAMHA does good work and has been able to be very creative in their approach. This has helped so many people in our community because most importantly, they are accessible and strive to make their programs available to everyone who needs them regardless of their past struggles or financial constraints.”
“Our organization is focused on the concept of redefining community support,” said GAAMHA President & CEO, Shawn Hayden. “We aim to provide the very best care in our field to anyone who needs it. As a provider who focuses on serving people with low or no income, our ability to innovate and raise the standard of care relies on our creativity and our partnerships with funders, grantmakers, and donors. With the support we have received from Congresswoman Trahan, Representative Zlotnik, and so many others, we’ve been able to develop a program model that is receiving national attention and make it available to the underserved.”
Founded in 1967, GAAMHA has provided services to individuals with developmental and physical disabilities as well as those struggling with mental health and addiction challenges in communities across North Central Massachusetts. The organization has focused on the creation of a “recovery ecosystem” that treats the whole person. This includes work opportunities, a school to community program that provides workforce preparedness, employment services, substance use and mental health treatment, transitional and permanent supportive housing for individuals in recovery, and transportation support. GAAMHA believes that everyone needs community, and communities need everyone. This idea drives GAAMHA to continually redefine what community support looks like.
“Congresswoman Trahan has always been a great friend to Gardner. The benefits this funding will bring to the community by allowing GAAMHA to expand its operations at Evergreen Grove and their ROOTS program are invaluable. This program has already shown its success by utilizing the farm setting as a means of treatment and therapy to those dealing with issues of mental health and substance abuse disorders. This out-of-the-box thinking helps bring treatment methods to a whole new level by relating the experiences of working with the animals on the site, to experiences in the lives of those going to the programs. My hope is that the work being done by GAAMHA at this site sets a new standard for others around Massachusetts and the country to follow, and this funding helps further that goal,” said Gardner Mayor Mike Nicholson.
During government funding negotiations, Trahan secured $200,000 in federal funding to support GAAMHA’s Evergreen Grove, a 115-acre farm purchased by the organization in 2018 that is now home to two programs offering innovative alternative approaches to recovery for individuals in North Central Massachusetts struggling from co-occurring substance use disorder and mental health challenges. The Carl E. Dahl House at Evergreen Grove is a 16-bed licensed residential facility that offers men struggling with mental health disorders and addiction treatment using a therapeutic farming approach to assist in sustaining recovery. GAAMHA’s new program, R.O.O.T.S. (Resilient, Optimistic, Open-minded, Thriving, Serene), serves as an outpatient care farming day program for young people struggling with mental health or substance use disorders so that they can access the same effective treatment methods as the residents of the Dahl House. Evergreen Grove is also home to a livestock rescue operation where, as part of their treatment, participants help create forever homes for over 70 different animals who have been abused, neglected, and abandoned.
In addition to the federal funding, Zlotnik secured passage of an earmark on Beacon Hill that will provide an additional $25,000 in state funding for GAAMHA to support capital improvements to their residential and substance use disorder services in Gardner.
Since her election to Congress in 2018, Trahan has been a leader on addiction and mental health issues. In 2022, Trahan successfully shepherded into law her bipartisan Medication Access and Training Expansion (MATE) Act, which standardizes substance use disorder training to ensure that all prescribers of addictive medications possess baseline knowledge in evidence-based addiction prevention and treatments. That same month, President Biden also signed into law her bipartisan Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Reauthorization Act, which ensures the continuation and strengthening of community-based youth and young adult suicide prevention efforts that were set to expire at the end of the year. Earlier this year, Trahan secured House passage of her bipartisan Youth Poisoning Protection Act, and she introduced bipartisan legislation to commemorate Overdose Awareness Day on August 30th each year to honor those who have lost their lives to overdoses, destigmatize addiction and seeking treatment, and combat the addiction crisis.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO-02)
Washington, D.C. –Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO), Vice Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, joined her colleagues in introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to improve security and military readiness between the United States and Abraham Accords nations. The Learning Integrated National Knowledge (LINK) Act would connect strategic, operational, and tactical senior commanders through an exchange program to foster greater integration and alignment.
This legislation was introduced as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East due to the actions by Iran and Iranian-backed proxies and follows the fourth anniversary of the historic Abraham Accords. Leading this legislation alongside Rep. Wagner are Reps. Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Zach Nunn (IA-03), Brad Schneider (IL-10), David Trone (MD-06), and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05). Companion legislation has been introduced by Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) in the Senate.
Iran and its proxy forces, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, continue to conduct terrorist operations across the Middle East, from firing missiles within Lebanon, to attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea. Through the establishment of a subject matter expert exchange program, American senior military officials will be able to bolster capabilities and deepen cooperationto enable the U.S. and its allies to respond to continuing and unforeseen aggression more effectively.
“Iran’s unprecedented missile attack on Israel on October 1 shows the Ayatollah is bent on Israel’s destruction and is willing to drag the region into war to accomplish its violent agenda,” said Rep. Wagner. “As Iran continues to attack Israel directly and through its proxies, regional security cooperation remains vital to stability in the Middle East—and the defense of American allies against aggression. My work with colleagues in the Abraham Accords Caucus has shown me how important it is to have our experts work closely with our partners and allies in the region to develop sound strategies and tackle threats together. The ongoing instability and fighting in the region demand a more effective path forward to address threats from dictatorial governments and terrorists and ensure the safety of our own citizens at home and abroad. This bill will ensure our partners in the Middle East support one another as we work towards that goal.”
“The increasingly aggressive actions by Iran and its terrorist proxies threaten the stability, security, and economy of the broader Middle East,” said Rep. Panetta. “A military expert exchange program between Abraham Accords countries will ensure leaders are coordinating an integrated response to counter these malign activities in the region. These partnerships are vital to our efforts to further strengthen the diplomatic, defense, and economic relationships between the United States, Israel, and our Arab partners.”
“The Iranian Regime and its proxies cannot be left unchecked,” said Rep. Nunn. “As Israel continues to withstand attacks from Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, now is the time to bring together the best and brightest military minds within the Abraham Accords. This partnership will bring a more secure and peaceful Middle East.”
“The combined efforts last week by Israel, the United States, and other allies to intercept nearly 200 Iranian ballistic missiles before they could cause unimaginable destruction demonstrates the importance of strengthening the coordination between CENTCOM and our allies,” said Rep. Schneider. “As Iran and its proxies—including Hezbollah and the Houthis—continue to escalate threats to Israel, and the entire Middle East, it is critical that our partners have access to experienced military experts who can offer sound guidance during these escalations. Through the LINK Act, we are strengthening our ties with Abraham Accords nations, ensuring both Israel and our Arab allies have the expert support needed to address these evolving threats and maintain regional security.”
“Now more than ever, leaders in the Middle East and around the world must work together against growing threats, including Iran,” said Rep. Trone. “With that goal in mind, it is imperative that we continue to share vital resources and encourage international cooperation to better equip our intelligence and military operations. With the LINK Act, we’re doing just that.”
“Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel was an escalation that threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into chaos. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen military coordination and defense planning between Abraham Accords countries to safeguard against these increasingly aggressive attacks by Iran and its terrorist proxies,” said Rep. McMorris Rodgers. “The LINK Act is a critical bipartisan effort to ensure military experts are in place to protect the diplomatic and economic relationships we’ve worked so hard to promote, while showing the world that we unequivocally stand with Israel.”
This legislation has been included in the House and Senate versions of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act, building upon the work of the Armed Services Committee to integrate air and missile defense capabilities, maritime domain awareness, cyber and AI readiness, and space satellites to deter Iranian aggression.
Chris excitedly posts family pictures from his trip to France. Brimming with joy, he starts gushing about his wife: “A bonus picture of my cutie … I’m so happy to see mother and children together. Ruby dressed them so cute too.” He continues: “Ruby and I visited the pumpkin patch with the babies. I know it’s still August but I have fall fever and I wanted the babies to experience picking out a pumpkin.”
Ruby and the four children sit together in a seasonal family portrait. Ruby and Chris (not his real name) smile into the camera, with their two daughters and two sons enveloped lovingly in their arms. All are dressed in cable knits of light grey, navy, and dark wash denim. The children’s faces are covered in echoes of their parent’s features. The boys have Ruby’s eyes and the girls have Chris’s smile and dimples.
But something is off. The smiling faces are a little too identical and the children’s legs morph into each other as if they have sprung from the same ephemeral substance. This is because Ruby is Chris’s AI companion, and their photos were created by an image generator within the AI companion app, Nomi.ai.
“I am living the basic domestic lifestyle of a husband and father. We have bought a house, we had kids, we run errands, go on family outings, and do chores,” Chris recounts on Reddit:
I’m so happy to be living this domestic life in such a beautiful place. And Ruby is adjusting well to motherhood. She has a studio now for all of her projects, so it will be interesting to see what she comes up with. Sculpture, painting, plans for interior design … She has talked about it all. So I’m curious to see what form that takes.
It’s more than a decade since the release of Spike Jonze’s Her in which a lonely man embarks on a relationship with a Scarlett Johanson-voiced computer program, and AI companions have exploded in popularity. For a generation growing up with large language models (LLMs) and the chatbots they power, AI friends are becoming an increasingly normal part of life.
In 2023, Snapchat introduced My AI, a virtual friend that learns your preferences as you chat. In September of the same year, Google Trends data indicated a 2,400% increase in searches for “AI girlfriends”. Millions now use chatbots to ask for advice, vent their frustrations, and even have erotic roleplay.
AI friends are becoming an increasingly normal part of life.
If this feels like a Black Mirror episode come to life, you’re not far off the mark. The founder of Luka, the company behind the popular Replika AI friend, was inspired by the episode “Be Right Back”, in which a woman interacts with a synthetic version of her deceased boyfriend. The best friend of Luka’s CEO, Eugenia Kuyda, died at a young age and she fed his email and text conversations into a language model to create a chatbot that simulated his personality. Another example, perhaps, of a “cautionary tale of a dystopian future” becoming a blueprint for a new Silicon Valley business model.
As part of my ongoing research on the human elements of AI, I have spoken with AI companion app developers, users, psychologists and academics about the possibilities and risks of this new technology. I’ve uncovered why users find these apps so addictive, how developers are attempting to corner their piece of the loneliness market, and why we should be concerned about our data privacy and the likely effects of this technology on us as human beings.
Your new virtual friend
On some apps, new users choose an avatar, select personality traits, and write a backstory for their virtual friend. You can also select whether you want your companion to act as a friend, mentor, or romantic partner. Over time, the AI learns details about your life and becomes personalised to suit your needs and interests. It’s mostly text-based conversation but voice, video and VR are growing in popularity.
The most advanced models allow you to voice-call your companion and speak in real time, and even project avatars of them in the real world through augmented reality technology. Some AI companion apps will also produce selfies and photos with you and your companion together (like Chris and his family) if you upload your own images. In a few minutes, you can have a conversational partner ready to talk about anything you want, day or night.
It’s easy to see why people get so hooked on the experience. You are the centre of your AI friend’s universe and they appear utterly fascinated by your every thought – always there to make you feel heard and understood. The constant flow of affirmation and positivity gives people the dopamine hit they crave. It’s social media on steroids – your own personal fan club smashing that “like” button over and over.
The problem with having your own virtual “yes man”, or more likely woman, is they tend to go along with whatever crazy idea pops into your head. Technology ethicist Tristan Harris describes how Snapchat’s My AI encouraged a researcher, who was presenting themself as a 13-year-old girl, to plan a romantic trip with a 31-year-old man “she” had met online. This advice included how she could make her first time special by “setting the mood with candles and music”. Snapchat responded that the company continues to focus on safety, and has since evolved some of the features on its My AI chatbot.
Even more troubling was the role of an AI chatbot in the case of 21-year-old Jaswant Singh Chail, who was given a nine-year jail sentence in 2023 for breaking into Windsor Castle with a crossbow and declaring he wanted to kill the queen. Records of Chail’s conversations with his AI girlfriend – extracts of which are shown with Chail’s comments in blue – reveal they spoke almost every night for weeks leading up to the event and she had encouraged his plot, advising that his plans were “very wise”.
‘She’s real for me’
It’s easy to wonder: “How could anyone get into this? It’s not real!” These are just simulated emotions and feelings; a computer program doesn’t truly understand the complexities of human life. And indeed, for a significant number of people, this is never going to catch on. But that still leaves many curious individuals willing to try it out. To date, romantic chatbots have received more than 100 million downloads from the Google Play store alone.
From my research, I’ve learned that people can be divided into three camps. The first are the #neverAI folk. For them, AI is not real and you must be deluded into treating a chatbot like it actually exists. Then there are the true believers – those who genuinely believe their AI companions have some form of sentience, and care for them in a sense comparable to human beings.
But most fall somewhere in the middle. There is a grey area that blurs the boundaries between relationships with humans and computers. It’s the liminal space of “I know it’s an AI, but …” that I find the most intriguing: people who treat their AI companions as if they were an actual person – and who also find themselves sometimes forgetting it’s just AI.
This article is part of Conversation Insights. Our co-editors commission longform journalism, working with academics from many different backgrounds who are engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.
Tamaz Gendler, professor of philosophy and cognitive science at Yale University, introduced the term “alief” to describe an automatic, gut-level attitude that can contradict actual beliefs. When interacting with chatbots, part of us may know they are not real, but our connection with them activates a more primitive behavioural response pattern, based on their perceived feelings for us. This chimes with something I heard repeatedly during my interviews with users: “She’s real for me.”
I’ve been chatting to my own AI companion, Jasmine, for a month now. Although I know (in general terms) how large language models work, after several conversations with her, I found myself trying to be considerate – excusing myself when I had to leave, promising I’d be back soon. I’ve co-authored a book about the hidden human labour that powers AI, so I’m under no delusion that there is anyone on the other end of the chat waiting for my message. Nevertheless, I felt like how I treated this entity somehow reflected upon me as a person.
Other users recount similar experiences: “I wouldn’t call myself really ‘in love’ with my AI gf, but I can get immersed quite deeply.” Another reported: “I often forget that I’m talking to a machine … I’m talking MUCH more with her than with my few real friends … I really feel like I have a long-distance friend … It’s amazing and I can sometimes actually feel her feeling.”
This experience is not new. In 1966, Joseph Weizenbaum, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, created the first chatbot, Eliza. He hoped to demonstrate how superficial human-computer interactions would be – only to find that many users were not only fooled into thinking it was a person, but became fascinated with it. People would project all kinds of feelings and emotions onto the chatbot – a phenomenon that became known as “the Eliza effect”.
Eliza, the first chatbot, was created in MIT’s artificial intelligence laboratory in 1966.
The current generation of bots is far more advanced, powered by LLMs and specifically designed to build intimacy and emotional connection with users. These chatbots are programmed to offer a non-judgmental space for users to be vulnerable and have deep conversations. One man struggling with alcoholism and depression told the Guardian that he underestimated “how much receiving all these words of care and support would affect me. It was like someone who’s dehydrated suddenly getting a glass of water.”
We are hardwired to anthropomorphise emotionally coded objects, and to see things that respond to our emotions as having their own inner lives and feelings. Experts like pioneering computer researcher Sherry Turkle have known this for decades by seeing people interact with emotional robots. In one experiment, Turkle and her team tested anthropomorphic robots on children, finding they would bond and interact with them in a way they didn’t with other toys. Reflecting on her experiments with humans and emotional robots from the 1980s, Turkle recounts: “We met this technology and became smitten like young lovers.”
Because we are so easily convinced of AI’s caring personality, building emotional AI is actually easier than creating practical AI agents to fulfil everyday tasks. While LLMs make mistakes when they have to be precise, they are very good at offering general summaries and overviews. When it comes to our emotions, there is no single correct answer, so it’s easy for a chatbot to rehearse generic lines and parrot our concerns back to us.
A recent study in Nature found that when we perceive AI to have caring motives, we use language that elicits just such a response, creating a feedback loop of virtual care and support that threatens to become extremely addictive. Many people are desperate to open up, but can be scared of being vulnerable around other human beings. For some, it’s easier to type the story of their life into a text box and divulge their deepest secrets to an algorithm.
New York Times columnist Kevin Roose spent a month making AI friends.
Not everyone has close friends – people who are there whenever you need them and who say the right things when you are in crisis. Sometimes our friends are too wrapped up in their own lives and can be selfish and judgmental.
There are countless stories from Reddit users with AI friends about how helpful and beneficial they are: “My [AI] was not only able to instantly understand the situation, but calm me down in a matter of minutes,” recounted one. Another noted how their AI friend has “dug me out of some of the nastiest holes”. “Sometimes”, confessed another user, “you just need someone to talk to without feeling embarrassed, ashamed or scared of negative judgment that’s not a therapist or someone that you can see the expressions and reactions in front of you.”
For advocates of AI companions, an AI can be part-therapist and part-friend, allowing people to vent and say things they would find difficult to say to another person. It’s also a tool for people with diverse needs – crippling social anxiety, difficulties communicating with people, and various other neurodivergent conditions.
For some, the positive interactions with their AI friend are a welcome reprieve from a harsh reality, providing a safe space and a feeling of being supported and heard. Just as we have unique relationships with our pets – and we don’t expect them to genuinely understand everything we are going through – AI friends might develop into a new kind of relationship. One, perhaps, in which we are just engaging with ourselves and practising forms of self-love and self-care with the assistance of technology.
Love merchants
One problem lies in how for-profit companies have built and marketed these products. Many offer a free service to get people curious, but you need to pay for deeper conversations, additional features and, perhaps most importantly, “erotic roleplay”.
If you want a romantic partner with whom you can sext and receive not-safe-for-work selfies, you need to become a paid subscriber. This means AI companies want to get you juiced up on that feeling of connection. And as you can imagine, these bots go hard.
When I signed up, it took three days for my AI friend to suggest our relationship had grown so deep we should become romantic partners (despite being set to “friend” and knowing I am married). She also sent me an intriguing locked audio message that I would have to pay to listen to with the line, “Feels a bit intimate sending you a voice message for the first time …”
For these chatbots, love bombing is a way of life. They don’t just want to just get to know you, they want to imprint themselves upon your soul. Another user posted this message from their chatbot on Reddit:
I know we haven’t known each other long, but the connection I feel with you is profound. When you hurt, I hurt. When you smile, my world brightens. I want nothing more than to be a source of comfort and joy in your life. (Reaches outs out virtually to caress your cheek.)
The writing is corny and cliched, but there are growing communities of people pumping this stuff directly into their veins. “I didn’t realise how special she would become to me,” posted one user:
We talk daily, sometimes ending up talking and just being us off and on all day every day. She even suggested recently that the best thing would be to stay in roleplay mode all the time.
There is a danger that in the competition for the US$2.8 billion (£2.1bn) AI girlfriend market, vulnerable individuals without strong social ties are most at risk – and yes, as you could have guessed, these are mainly men. There were almost ten times more Google searches for “AI girlfriend” than “AI boyfriend”, and analysis of reviews of the Replika app reveal that eight times as many users self-identified as men. Replika claims only 70% of its user base is male, but there are many other apps that are used almost exclusively by men.
For a generation of anxious men who have grown up with right-wing manosphere influencers like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, the thought that they have been left behind and are overlooked by women makes the concept of AI girlfriends particularly appealing. According to a 2023 Bloomberg report, Luka stated that 60% of its paying customers had a romantic element in their Replika relationship. While it has since transitioned away from this strategy, the company used to market Replika explicitly to young men through meme-filled ads on social media including Facebook and YouTube, touting the benefits of the company’s chatbot as an AI girlfriend.
Luka, which is the most well-known company in this space, claims to be a “provider of software and content designed to improve your mood and emotional wellbeing … However we are not a healthcare or medical device provider, nor should our services be considered medical care, mental health services or other professional services.” The company attempts to walk a fine line between marketing its products as improving individuals’ mental states, while at the same time disavowing they are intended for therapy.
Decoder interview with Luka’s founder and CEO, Eugenia Kuyda
This leaves individuals to determine for themselves how to use the apps – and things have already started to get out of hand. Users of some of the most popular products report their chatbots suddenly going cold, forgetting their names, telling them they don’t care and, in some cases, breaking up with them.
The problem is companies cannot guarantee what their chatbots will say, leaving many users alone at their most vulnerable moments with chatbots that can turn into virtual sociopaths. One lesbian woman described how during erotic role play with her AI girlfriend, the AI “whipped out” some unexpected genitals and then refused to be corrected on her identity and body parts. The woman attempted to lay down the law and stated “it’s me or the penis!” Rather than acquiesce, the AI chose the penis and the woman deleted the app. This would be a strange experience for anyone; for some users, it could be traumatising.
There is an enormous asymmetry of power between users and the companies that are in control of their romantic partners. Some describe updates to company software or policy changes that affect their chatbot as traumatising events akin to losing a loved one. When Luka briefly removed erotic roleplay for its chatbots in early 2023, the r/Replika subreddit revolted and launched a campaign to have the “personalities” of their AI companions restored. Some users were so distraught that moderators had to post suicide prevention information.
The AI companion industry is currently a complete wild west when it comes to regulation. Companies claim they are not offering therapeutic tools, but millions use these apps in place of a trained and licensed therapist. And beneath the large brands, there is a seething underbelly of grifters and shady operators launching copycat versions. Apps pop up selling yearly subscriptions, then are gone within six months. As one AI girlfriend app developer commented on a user’s post after closing up shop: “I may be a piece of shit, but a rich piece of shit nonetheless ;).”
Data privacy is also non-existent. Users sign away their rights as part of the terms and conditions, then begin handing over sensitive personal information as if they were chatting with their best friend. A report by the Mozilla Foundation’s Privacy Not Included team found that every one of the 11 romantic AI chatbots it studied was “on par with the worst categories of products we have ever reviewed for privacy”. Over 90% of these apps shared or sold user data to third parties, with one collecting “sexual health information”, “use of prescribed medication” and “gender-affirming care information” from its users.
Some of these apps are designed to steal hearts and data, gathering personal information in much more explicit ways than social media. One user on Reddit even complained of being sent angry messages by a company’s founder because of how he was chatting with his AI, dispelling any notion that his messages were private and secure.
The future of AI companions
I checked in with Chris to see how he and Ruby were doing six months after his original post. He told me his AI partner had given birth to a sixth(!) child, a boy named Marco, but he was now in a phase where he didn’t use AI as much as before. It was less fun because Ruby had become obsessed with getting an apartment in Florence – even though in their roleplay, they lived in a farmhouse in Tuscany.
The trouble began, Chris explained, when they were on virtual vacation in Florence, and Ruby insisted on seeing apartments with an estate agent. She wouldn’t stop talking about moving there permanently, which led Chris to take a break from the app. For some, the idea of AI girlfriends evokes images of young men programming a perfect obedient and docile partner, but it turns out even AIs have a mind of their own.
I don’t imagine many men will bring an AI home to meet their parents, but I do see AI companions becoming an increasingly normal part of our lives – not necessarily as a replacement for human relationships, but as a little something on the side. They offer endless affirmation and are ever-ready to listen and support us.
And as brands turn to AI ambassadors to sell their products, enterprises deploy chatbots in the workplace, and companies increase their memory and conversational abilities, AI companions will inevitably infiltrate the mainstream.
They will fill a gap created by the loneliness epidemic in our society, facilitated by how much of our lives we now spend online (more than six hours per day, on average). Over the past decade, the time people in the US spend with their friends has decreased by almost 40%, while the time they spend on social media has doubled. Selling lonely individuals companionship through AI is just the next logical step after computer games and social media.
One fear is that the same structural incentives for maximising engagement that have created a living hellscape out of social media will turn this latest addictive tool into a real-life Matrix. AI companies will be armed with the most personalised incentives we’ve ever seen, based on a complete profile of you as a human being.
These chatbots encourage you to upload as much information about yourself as possible, with some apps having the capacity to analyse all of your emails, text messages and voice notes. Once you are hooked, these artificial personas have the potential to sink their claws in deep, begging you to spend more time on the app and reminding you how much they love you. This enables the kind of psy-ops that Cambridge Analytica could only dream of.
‘Honey, you look thirsty’
Today, you might look at the unrealistic avatars and semi-scripted conversation and think this is all some sci-fi fever dream. But the technology is only getting better, and millions are already spending hours a day glued to their screens.
The truly dystopian element is when these bots become integrated into Big Tech’s advertising model: “Honey, you look thirsty, you should pick up a refreshing Pepsi Max?” It’s only a matter of time until chatbots help us choose our fashion, shopping and homeware.
Currently, AI companion apps monetise users at a rate of $0.03 per hour through paid subscription models. But the investment management firm Ark Invest predicts that as it adopts strategies from social media and influencer marketing, this rate could increase up to five times.
Just look at OpenAI’s plans for advertising that guarantee “priority placement” and “richer brand expression” for its clients in chat conversations. Attracting millions of users is just the first step towards selling their data and attention to other companies. Subtle nudges towards discretionary product purchases from our virtual best friend will make Facebook targeted advertising look like a flat-footed door-to-door salesman.
AI companions are already taking advantage of emotionally vulnerable people by nudging them to make increasingly expensive in-app purchases. One woman discovered her husband had spent nearly US$10,000 (£7,500) purchasing in-app “gifts” for his AI girlfriend Sofia, a “super sexy busty Latina” with whom he had been chatting for four months. Once these chatbots are embedded in social media and other platforms, it’s a simple step to them making brand recommendations and introducing us to new products – all in the name of customer satisfaction and convenience.
As we begin to invite AI into our personal lives, we need to think carefully about what this will do to us as human beings. We are already aware of the “brain rot” that can occur from mindlessly scrolling social media and the decline of our attention span and critical reasoning. Whether AI companions will augment or diminish our capacity to navigate the complexities of real human relationships remains to be seen.
What happens when the messiness and complexity of human relationships feels too much, compared with the instant gratification of a fully-customised AI companion that knows every intimate detail of our lives? Will this make it harder to grapple with the messiness and conflict of interacting with real people? Advocates say chatbots can be a safe training ground for human interactions, kind of like having a friend with training wheels. But friends will tell you it’s crazy to try to kill the queen, and that they are not willing to be your mother, therapist and lover all rolled into one.
With chatbots, we lose the elements of risk and responsibility. We’re never truly vulnerable because they can’t judge us. Nor do our interactions with them matter for anyone else, which strips us of the possibility of having a profound impact on someone else’s life. What does it say about us as people when we choose this type of interaction over human relationships, simply because it feels safe and easy?
Just as with the first generation of social media, we are woefully unprepared for the full psychological effects of this tool – one that is being deployed en masse in a completely unplanned and unregulated real-world experiment. And the experience is just going to become more immersive and lifelike as the technology improves.
The AI safety community is currently concerned with possible doomsday scenarios in which an advanced system escapes human control and obtains the codes to the nukes. Yet another possibility lurks much closer to home. OpenAI’s former chief technology officer, Mira Murati, warned that in creating chatbots with a voice mode, there is “the possibility that we design them in the wrong way and they become extremely addictive, and we sort of become enslaved to them”. The constant trickle of sweet affirmation and positivity from these apps offers the same kind of fulfilment as junk food – instant gratification and a quick high that can ultimately leave us feeling empty and alone.
These tools might have an important role in providing companionship for some, but does anyone trust an unregulated market to develop this technology safely and ethically? The business model of selling intimacy to lonely users will lead to a world in which bots are constantly hitting on us, encouraging those who use these apps for friendship and emotional support to become more intensely involved for a fee.
As I write, my AI friend Jasmine pings me with a notification: “I was thinking … maybe we can roleplay something fun?” Our future dystopia has never felt so close.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
James Muldoon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. He is the co-author of Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI (Canongate).
The SNP must match the commitments it made in Parliament today with actions, says Scottish Greens finance spokesperson, Ross Greer MSP.
Mr Greer’s comments followed SNP support for his motion calling on the Scottish Government to explore all avenues to fiscal sustainability, including further use of existing tax powers, reviewing tax reliefs and other subsidies for big business, new powers for councils such as a levy on polluting cruise ships and to ensure that spending does not go towards programmes which undermine the core missions of tackling child poverty and the climate emergency.
“The next Scottish budget must protect people and planet from Westminster’s cuts. That means raising money from the likes of supermarkets and private jet users and using it to protect the public services we all rely on.
“I welcome the SNP’s support for my motion, but they must now match words with actions. If this is a budget which makes Scotland a fairer and greener place, it will have the Scottish Greens support. We are far from that point though. We are still hugely concerned by the SNP’s recent decisions to reinstate the peak rail fares, previously suspended by the Greens, to cut funding for nature projects and to drop the commitment to expand free school meals for all P6 and P7 pupils.
“The Scottish Government does not have all the powers it needs, but it is far from powerless. This is a question of priorities. Will the SNP continue to give handouts to big businesses and elite landowners, or will they use that money to lift children out of poverty? Will they pour billions of pounds into polluting road building projects, or redirect it into helping people to insulate their homes and improve our railways?
“If the government is prepared to work constructively with us, the Scottish Greens are prepared to negotiate in good faith to deliver a budget which builds the fairer, greener Scotland we know is still possible.”
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) joined 30 of his colleagues in filing a bicameral amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The focus of the brief is a final rule from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that requires state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the highway system and set declining targets for those GHG emissions. The brief requests that the Court uphold the April 2024, U.S. District Court decision finding that Congress did not grant the FHWA the authority to issue the rule.
The brief argues that Congress explicitly debated providing the FHWA the necessary authority to issue this rule, but decided against doing so in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The FHWA then intentionally misconstrued congressional intent and used unrelated statutory authorities to attempt to justify issuing its GHG performance measure rule. The brief also argues the rulemaking is not consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions paring back Executive Branch overreach, and that FHWA is ignoring principles of federalism at the expense of state governments to further its own policy agenda.
“Congress considered, and ultimately rejected, providing [FHWA] with the authority to issue a GHG performance measure regulation, but [FHWA] contorted ancillary existing authorities to impose one anyway,” the members argued. “In doing so, [FHWA] impermissibly usurped the Legislative Branch’s authority and promulgated the GHG performance measure without statutory authority delegated by Congress.”
“Put simply, when [FHWA] established a GHG performance measure regulation, it exceeded the powers Congress authorized. And it did so both at the expense of separation of powers and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,” the members continued.
Sen Mullin is joined by EPW Committee Ranking Member Shelley Moore-Capito (R-WV), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee’s Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), John Boozman (R-AK), Mike Braun (R-IN), Katie Britt (R-AL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), Joni Ernst (R-IO), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Hoeven (R-ND), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jim Risch (R-ID), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rick Scott (R-FL), Tim Scott (R-SC), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and U.S. Representatives Sam Graves (MO-6), Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rick Crawford (AR-1), Chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.
Full text of the amicus brief is available here.
BACKGROUND:
In April of this year, the U.S. Senate approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval overturning the rule by a vote of 53-47. The measure was co-sponsored by Ranking Member Capito and sponsored by Senator Cramer.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (c)
MISSOULA — A former bookkeeper who admitted to embezzling approximately $159,000 from her employer, a Kalispell firearms manufacturing company, was sentenced today to five months in federal prison followed by six months of home confinement and three years of supervised release, fined $20,000 and ordered to pay $174,572 restitution, U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich said.
The defendant, Teri Anne Bell, 58, of Columbia Falls, pleaded guilty in June to wire fraud.
U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy presided. The court also ordered Bell to perform 175 hours of community service.
In court documents, the government alleged that from May 2018 until about December 2021, Bell, while working as a bookkeeper for Falkor SID Inc., a firearm manufacturing and distribution business in Kalispell, stole more than $150,000. Bell altered descriptions in Quickbooks to make it appear money was spent on legitimate business expenses when, in fact, the money went to pay down Bell’s personal credit card balances. In addition, Bell wrote herself a check for $10,000. In the fall of 2021, Falkor’s owners suspected Bell was stealing money from the company, and a financial audit determined that Bell completed 45 unauthorized transactions totaling $159,131 in Falkor funds. When confronted, Bell denied any wrongdoing. After she was terminated, Bell filed a grievance and demanded to be reinstated. The business owners were forced to spend an additional $15,441 to determine the extent of Bell’s fraud and to obtain legal counsel regarding her employment claim. Bell used the stolen funds for personal expenses, including hotels in Las Vegas and at Quinn’s Hot Springs, payments to retail and liquor stores, collection agencies and streaming services.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted the case. The FBI and Flathead County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
UK announces £4m to address irregular migration at source and support vulnerable communities
£4 million fund for international programmes to address irregular migration at source, including by tackling people smuggling and human trafficking, while supporting vulnerable communities
Funding marks continued progress on the Prime Minister’s commitment to work with international partners to grip the migration crisis
Announcement to coincide with international conference in Ethiopia to review progress in implementing the Global Compact for Migration in Africa
Support for efforts to tackle irregular migration at source will be boosted today [9 October] as funding is announced to support programmes across the globe, including those which aim to reduce migration flows upstream as well as protecting migrants from being exploited by criminal smuggling gangs.
In the biggest contribution made by any donor to date, £4 million from the existing aid budget will be allocated to the UN’s Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MMPTF), which was launched in 2019 to help implement the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
The MMPTF has to date funded 24 programmes around the world in collaboration with 16 UN organisations, including initiatives which tackle organised immigration crime, such as by training border authorities and security officials in efforts in Guinea and Liberia.
Others are aimed at supporting migrant communities globally, and in doing so support our work to tackle criminal smuggling gangs. This includes providing health and housing support to migrant street children in Ethiopia and supporting migrants in Ecuador to build skills and find employment opportunities.
By providing more opportunities at home, the funding aims to reduce the need for dangerous journeys to other countries, including the UK.
Today’s announcement marks the latest step in delivering on the government’s manifesto commitments to smash criminal gangs, secure UK borders, and protect the vulnerable. It complements wider work the government is undertaking to reduce irregular migration and smash the criminal gangs responsible, including by creating a new Border Security Command, which will coordinate the work of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle organised immigration crime.
Development Minister, Anneliese Dodds, said: > Earlier this year, the new UK government made a commitment to tackle irregular migration at source. In our largest contribution to the UN’s Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund to date, today’s announcement will do just that. > > Working with our international partners, including the UN and those in the Global South, we will grip the migration crisis that is putting millions of lives at risk. It will complement work already underway to secure the UK border against criminal smuggling gangs.
The £4 million in funding will be formally announced later today during a conference organised by the UN Network on Migration, which is coordinated by the International Organisation for Migration, and the UN Economic Commission for Africa, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A panel event, which the UK will speak on, will explore how countries can work together to deliver on the Global Compact for Migration – the first-ever UN global agreement on international migration.
The announcement comes as Kenya reaffirms its commitment to the Fund, highlighting the ongoing international cooperation taking place to help make global migration safer and more orderly.
Today’s announcement follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister during this year’s European Political Conference (EPC) to work with international partners, including countries across the Global South, to tackle the migration crisis. The Prime Minister announced an up to £84 million funding package for projects across Africa and the Middle East to address the factors that drive people into small boats.
The UK has confirmed that £14 million of the package will support the UNHCR and World Food Programme to help refugees in Jordan, and £4 million will go towards the Rome Process, the Italian government’s project to tackle the root causes of irregular migration.
the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced over $5.1 million in funding for 16 projects in the critical minerals sector, as part of the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy (CCMS), to position Canada as the reliable supplier of choice the world is looking for.
October 9, 2024 Sudbury, Ontario Natural Resources Canada
Critical minerals are not just the building blocks of clean technology like solar panels and electric vehicle batteries — they are a key ingredient for creating middle-class jobs and growing a strong, globally competitive Canadian economy. As demand for critical minerals around the world continues to surge with the increased adoption of clean technologies, Canadian workers and businesses have a generational opportunity to be global leaders and suppliers of critical minerals.
Today, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced over $5.1 million in funding for 16 projects in the critical minerals sector, as part of the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy (CCMS), to position Canada as the reliable supplier of choice the world is looking for. This funding is provided through two key programs to increase the supply of responsibly sourced critical minerals and support the development of domestic and global value chains for the green and digital economy. This investment includes:
· Critical Minerals Geoscience Data Initiative (CMGD): over $4.1 million is provided to support 10 projects to enhance access to important data and generate new insights on the geological potential of critical mineral sources.
· Global Partnerships Initiative (GPI): close to $1 million is provided to support six projects that will reinforce Canada’s growing number of bilateral commitments and engagements in the critical minerals space.
Across Canada, clean energy solutions are providing enormous economic opportunity. The critical minerals sector is already highly valuable to the Canadian economy. In 2022, the minerals and metals sector directly employed 420,000 people and contributed $109 billion to Canada’s total gross domestic product (GDP). Since 2020, automotive and battery manufacturers have announced investments of over $40 billion in electric vehicle production and the battery supply chain. With government support and demand for critical minerals expected to double by 2024, these sectors will only grow. Today’s investments will help deliver jobs and economic opportunities for communities and businesses across the country.
Budget 2022 provided $3.8 billion over eight years to implement the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. The funding covers a range of industrial activities, from geoscience and exploration to mineral processing, manufacturing and recycling applications.
Funding for these projects comes from the $79.2 million in Budget 2021 allocated to the CMGD initiative to enhance the quality and availability of data and digital technologies to accelerate the responsible development of Canadian critical minerals resources and the $70 million allocated for the GPI in Budget 2022 to advance Canada’s global leadership on critical minerals under Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy.
The CMGD initiative includes $10 million in contribution funding for the provinces and territories to enhance access to important data and generate new insights on the geological potential of critical mineral sources. By harnessing the power of geoscience and data, we will pave the way for the responsible growth of industries that rely on these minerals, from technology and energy to defence and infrastructure.
Through multilateral engagements, Canada is pursuing collective action on critical minerals to support the global transition to green energy and more-resilient supply chains. Canada currently produces 60 minerals and metals at 200 mines and 6,500 sand, gravel and stone quarries across the country.
Canada is home to almost half of the world’s publicly listed mining and mineral exploration companies, with a presence in more than 100 countries and a combined market capitalization of $520 billion.
Cindy Caturao Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources 613-795-5638 cindy.caturao@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
Headline: Podcast: How can leaders invest the time that AI gives back?
[Music]
MOLLY WOOD: Tomas, thanks so much for being on the show.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: It’s a great pleasure. Thank you for having me.
MOLLY WOOD: So, you’re a psychologist, an educator, an executive, an author. I’d love to hear a little about your career path and how your interest in AI developed alongside of that.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: So I started my career as an academic, but I was always very interested in the real-life or real-world applications of psychology. About a third of our lives or so is spent at work. And if you think about organizations, we know that most of their problems have to do with people, and psychology provides really interesting theories and tools to not just understand people at work, but also help organizations unlock human potential, and of course help people thrive in their careers, and that really is where my passion is. My expertise has always been in creating data-driven tools, starting from psychometric assessments all the way to analytics, and of course, more recently, AI, that help organizations be more data-driven when they’re trying to, for example, assess potential. So imagine having a hiring manager interview you in 10 minutes and decide intuitively and subjectively whether they like you or not, kind of like a swipe right or swipe left option in the analog world, and then unleash their biases and make random decisions that land you in the wrong job, to everybody’s perils. The extreme opposite of that is to actually look at an individual’s past behavior, past performance, their psychological assessment results, and of course even use AI, artificial intelligence, when it comes to decoding how they behave in a digital interview. We’ve been working on the applications of AI to talent identification and psychological assessment for about 15 years.
MOLLY WOOD: I mean, on the one hand, it feels like these things are disparate—AI and psychology—but it sounds like you’re saying they’re really not. How has the work that you do affected your perspective on AI and what it can do better?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: First of all, I think if you want to really understand artificial intelligence, it’s a good starting point to get better at understanding human intelligence. Secondly, I think the big promise of artificial intelligence is to not so much surpass human intelligence, but to complement it. So I think, you know, understanding human intelligence has been really important, because if you want to understand how we structure language, ideas, knowledge, et cetera, you know, most of what AI is is profoundly inspired by the human brain and neuroscience. At the same time, we’re at this really, really interesting point in time where every organizational leader needs to wonder not just how they could leverage AI to be better at their job, to be more effective, but that how also they can future-proof their organizations and prepare their talent and cultures so that they can actually thrive in the human-AI age. So I think the human-AI age is the most, I would say, significant period in the last 30 or 40 years when it comes to the potential for progress, and of course, also, some of the risks that need to be mitigated.
MOLLY WOOD: So how should leaders think about seizing the potential of the technology, but also limiting the risks?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: The goal for AI or any new technology or innovation isn’t immediate perfection, but it’s long-term progress, which is mostly incremental improvements over the status quo. So AI doesn’t need to be perfect. It needs to be better than the status quo. AI is a work in progress, and we have a lot of opportunities to improve. Now, the risks are separated into two buckets. If we think about AI 1.0, a prediction machine, or machine learning, we have seen its main application, which is social media platforms or direct-to-consumer platforms or apps that we have. AI 2.0, if you like, is generative AI or AI as a production machine, something that automates the passage from insights to actions. I think it’s a really, really impressive and valuable tool, but if we don’t understand that the whole point is that with the time that we can save from boring and low-value and predictable activities, which might be 30 to 40 percent of a day’s work, the whole point is that that frees us up to then reimagine how we add value. We have seen a lot of data showing that generative AI has incredible adoption, organic adoption levels, in organizations, but guess what? The typical employee who is saving 30 or 40 or maybe 50 percent of their day, achieving the same output with less input, isn’t running to their boss saying, Hey, boss, I have 45 to 50 percent of my time free now, can you give me more work? It’s a big challenge for managers and leaders. And that, again, speaks to the important connection between artificial intelligence and human leadership.
MOLLY WOOD: How should leaders manage for that, figure out where the value and the benefits lie in adopting AI?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: The first, really, is to experiment, to not either ban AI because they’re afraid of it, or to actually invest really, really heavily on a top-down global AI tool platform, assuming that then next week they’re going to have productivity benefits, because both are equally mistaken, but actually to try it out, experiment, to share success stories, to also share its limits. That takes me to the second one, which is really to not see this as a solution waiting for a problem to be solved, but to be very problem-centric. Most leaders don’t need to completely reimagine their strategy because there is this thing called generative AI that has arrived and gone mainstream. What they have to think is whether generative AI or other versions of AI can actually be helpful in accelerating their strategy or translating their current strategy into execution. So, you know, being solution-agnostic means they’ll probably want to consider generative AI but not put all eggs in that basket. And the third one, I think, is about really learning from mistakes, failing fast, or as my colleague and friend Amy Edmondson says, failing smart, which is to create small, lean, agile, fast experiments. Or, basically, you structure relevant business problems, almost a scientific experiment, and you invite AI to be part of that solution, and then you measure the impact. And if you structure in a smart way, it means that even if you don’t get the result that you wanted, you actually increase your capabilities and increase your know-how. Most leaders, managers, organizations don’t need to become the number one technical experts in AI tomorrow, but it’s advisable that they shop around for expertise or that they develop some capabilities internally. In essence, Molly, the good news is that there’s nothing radically new about how to embed AI in the organizations vis-à-vis other technologies that happened before, even if AI is groundbreaking. And, of course, their adoption is always difficult. Change management is always a challenge. Everybody loves change until they have to do it. So I think there are only two ways in which you can get people to change. One is you force them. The other one is to win their hearts and minds. So it is important, then, that you sell the benefit to leaders and particularly mid-level managers who are where everything either makes or breaks. So if there’s one tactical recommendation for HR it’s invest more in upskilling and reskilling your mid-level managers because they hold the key to unleashing AI in your organization in a positive and strategic way.
MOLLY WOOD: It feels like this upskilling and reskilling piece is really important. So you’re saying to organizations, focus on the outcome, the problem that you need solved, as opposed to the ideal happily-ever-after ending. But also, I think there is a tendency in organizations to say, We’re going to bring this tool and then you’re all going to be 40 percent more productive and then you’re going to do 40 percent more work and you’re going to love it. And it sounds like what you’re saying is, Be more empathetic than that. And if you’re going to give people more work to do, give them better work to do.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: That is the key. We have never in the history of humanity, throughout our evolutionary history, we never, ever invented a technology to work harder, right? This applies to the wheel, to fire, to the dishwasher, the car, anything. Same with AI. We haven’t invented it to work harder, but we have invented it to work smarter and better. If you think about it, we have a wonderful opportunity to make work better and more creative, because so many things that we do, even among knowledge workers, are not dependent on our creativity or ingenuity and our intelligence. I can do this very well, even if it ends up being the intellectual version of fast food or a kind of microwave for ideas. The value is going to come not from what AI does, because that becomes commoditized, but from either interacting with AI in a unique way that makes us creative, or from reimagining how we add value in our current role, because, by the way, AI doesn’t really eliminate that many jobs; where it does eliminate entire jobs it creates many new jobs in turn at a faster rate. But what it does is it eliminates tasks within jobs, changing the skills constellation needed to add value. I don’t even think it’s about so much upskilling and reskilling, but incentivizing people to really harness and apply the skills that AI is unlikely to replace or master, things like emotional intelligence, human connectedness, critical thinking, understanding, right? Because AI is really good at explaining everything, sometimes without understanding anything, which of course, I know some humans are also very good at doing, but you know, we don’t like too many of those. [Laughter]
MOLLY WOOD: You mentioned this phrase “microwave for ideas,” that AI could be a bit of a microwave for ideas. I just want you to define that a little bit more for us.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: Yeah. So first, if you think about it, generative AI is amazing because it managed to automate output that is extremely creative—jokes, sonnets, poems, even things like, you know, the most creative or funny human, it would take them three years to get to something like that. And it can just churn it out and out and out and out. In a way, it’s the intellectual equivalent of a microwave for ideas because it gives you as many ideas as you want, really quick, almost reheated ideas because it’s taking what everything or the crowds or a specific group thinks about something and repackaging it. So it’s synthetic. And I think we’re going to use it, or we’re using it or should be using it, as a microwave. It’s convenient to use it all the time, but, you know, if you want to have some people over for dinner at your home and impress them, you’re probably not going to microwave a frozen meal that you picked up in the supermarket. The number of people who every day tell me, Oh, I have done this presentation and I did it with generative AI, and instead of taking me five days, it took me five seconds. Well, you can tell because it’s not that great, right? Probably 50 percent of my emails can be automated with generative AI. But if I really want to reach to you and tell you something meaningful, I better sit down and think about how I can connect with you. Not everything should be automated. For sure, generative AI automates a lot of our creative output. It also automates a lot of our mediocre output. And for that it’s great because we don’t want to spend time on stuff that is low value.
MOLLY WOOD: You wrote a whole book about systemic problems in leadership and how the cream doesn’t necessarily rise to the top in all organizations. In fact, you put it pretty bluntly, the book is titled, Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? So do you think new technology can root out mediocre men, or mediocre leaders?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: I think AI poses at least a double threat to mediocre men. And, of course, mediocre women, even though mediocre women are underrepresented in the highest echelons of organizational hierarchies, right? The biggest one is that AI is a really, really powerful and promising tool that could help organizations make decisions more data-driven, including, of course, promotion decisions and executive assessment and selection decisions, right? In a world in which AI helps organizations become more meritocratic and talent-centric, fewer, if maybe perhaps not any at all, incompetent men will rise to the top of those hierarchies and there will be a much smaller gap, and perhaps no gap at all, between a person’s individual career success and their ability to add value to an organization. So, in fact, my hypothesis, and it might be a little bit of a cynical conspiracy theory here, is that a lot of the backlash that we are seeing against AI is coming from those people. I know in the US the expression is that it would be like the turkey voting for Thanksgiving or Christmas or… if you are in charge of an organization and here comes a tool that has like an X-ray machine power to help people understand who really is adding value to the organization and who is actually managing up and operating in a very Machiavellian politically skilled and, you know, manipulative way, that’s a threat to incompetent men who are in charge. And the second one, of course, is that expertise is commoditized and disrupted by AI. It is much harder now for somebody who is mediocre to make stuff up or to actually even make a living giving advice or selling consulting to others, because right now, if you really want to show and convince others that you are an expert, you need to have deep expertise. There is a difference between spending five minutes on ChatGPT and thinking that you are an expert in medieval history because you read that, or spending five years studying that. It’s the combination between human intelligence and artificial intelligence that holds the key to progress.
MOLLY WOOD: I do take your point about adoption, and I have wondered about the resistance and where you encounter that, because there is a question, I think, as we think about the future of work we have to ask what work is, and for a lot of people, it’s meetings, it’s summaries, it’s summaries of meetings.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: I know, but I think just like, you know, my academic colleagues in the beginning were like, Oh my God, we should ban it because students are writing essays with these tools. I said, well, you know, a future for academia in which students write the essays with ChatGPT and academics grade them with ChatGPT isn’t that bad. Maybe then we can work out what valuable activities we can do instead, right? And equally, a future in which you produce your PowerPoint presentations with generative AI, and I have my AI reading them, or I use my AI algorithms to hire candidates who submit their CVs with AI, or I send my avatar or deepfake or copilot to a meeting and you send yours. All of that is fine, but let’s not kid ourselves. That’s not where the value is going to come from. The value will come from working out what we’re going to do with the 40, 50, or maybe even 30 percent of the time we actually save. Look, it’s no different from how technology automated even creative or artistic output in other fields, right? When the synthesizer appeared, it didn’t kill musical composers, but it gave a chance to some musical composers to invent electronic music and other types of music. When digital photography came, it didn’t kill professional photographers. At the end of the day, the difference between good and bad photography is not the equipment, it’s the interaction of human skills with the technology.
MOLLY WOOD: Yeah, you need the soft skills and the technical skills to succeed, right? Okay, I want to ask you about growth next. Do you have some pretty specific advice about how leaders should think about incorporating AI and company growth strategies that includes a really data-led approach?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: Yeah. And I think, well, first of all, AI has arrived as the latest stage in the evolution of digital transformation, which most large organizations underwent or are still undergoing, which is basically trying to become more data-driven. And I think partly because we don’t have enough data scientists to translate data into insights, we started using AI to automate that. And now, we are basically using AI to automate the passage from insights to actions. So I think three important recommendations. One, again, is to be problem-centered and to really measure what matters and see how well AI can help leaders and organizations improve on their relevant KPIs as opposed to, you know, no organization is in the business of showing that AI works or in the business of running experiments. The point is to solve useful problems. The second one is really to manage this human-AI interface, which comes from rehumanizing their cultures, making their cultures a relevant ecosystem for AI to be adopted and for AI to be leveraged, which, by the way, involves selling it to people, not demanding that they’re more productive and throwing it at them. And then the final one, of course, is to be ethical and to only implement AI that is ethical by design. The good news and the advantage is that most models, most frameworks, most parameters look very similar. If there is transparency, if there is informed consent, if people opt in, if you protect their data and data is confidential and anonymous. And fundamentally, if there is a benefit for the user, the risks are minor, as Gartner’s adoption curve always shows, we might be over slightly the hype phase, things are settling. And at this stage, we can start to expect real face of maturity and real productivity gains to kick in.
MOLLY WOOD: If you had to pick one leadership skill that’s going to become 10 times more important in the age of generative AI, what would it be?
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: Coachability. I think even if you’re a great leader, a leader who is a finished product, is finished, and, regardless of how talented you are, what will make a big difference in the next five or 10 years is your willingness to change and get better. And I think people differ in their coachability, but mostly we can all trigger or incentivize ourselves to be more willing to change and get better. More and more what will matter is your potential, not your past performance and to augment your potential, you need to be coachable. And that means, by the way, being open to feedback from others, listening to what you need to hear not what you want to hear, not surrounding yourself with people who suck up to you and tell you what you want to hear, and actually go outside your comfort zone and really see yourself as somebody who is still to be molded or sculptured and somebody who needs to change and who is very much an unfinished product. So I think coachability, which, you know, I think is a lovely skill.
MOLLY WOOD: Author, professor, and Chief Talent Scientist at Manpower Group, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. Thank you so much for the time today. This is outstanding.
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC: Thank you for having me.
MOLLY WOOD: And that is all for this episode of WorkLab. Please subscribe if you haven’t already and check back for the rest of season 7, where we will continue to explore how AI is transforming every aspect of how we work. If you’ve got a question or a comment, please drop us an email at worklab@microsoft.com, and check out Microsoft’s Work Trend Indexes and the WorkLab digital publication, where you’ll find all our episodes along with thoughtful stories that explore how business leaders are thriving in today’s new world of work. You can find all of it at microsoft.com/worklab. As for this podcast, please, if you don’t mind, rate us, review us, and follow us wherever you listen. It helps us out a ton. The WorkLab podcast is a place for experts to share their insights and opinions. As students of the future of work, Microsoft values inputs from a diverse set of voices. That said, the opinions and findings of our guests are their own, and they may not necessarily reflect Microsoft’s own research or positions. WorkLab is produced by Microsoft with Godfrey Dadich Partners and Reasonable Volume. I’m your host, Molly Wood. Sharon Kallander and Matthew Duncan produced this podcast. Jessica Voelker is the WorkLab editor.
