Month: October 2024

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Democracy dies in darkness” is the Washington Post’s slogan, but can it handle the light?

The Post has been doggedly portraying the election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris as a choice between tyranny (Trump) and democracy (Harris). Yet when it commissioned a poll on threats to democracy shortly before the election, it did not quite work out.

Voters in swing states believe that Trump is more likely to protect democracy than Kamala Harris, who is running on a “save democracy” platform.

The poll sampled 5,016 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

When asked whether Trump or Harris “would do a better job” of “defending against threats to democracy,” 43% picked Trump while 40% picked Harris.

Notably, this was the same result when President Biden was the nominee. While over half said that threats to democracy were important to them, the voters trusted Trump (44%) more than Biden (33%) in protecting democracy.

Even with the slight improvement for Harris, the result was crushing for not just many in the Harris campaign but the press and pundits who have been unrelenting in announcing the end of democracy if Harris is not elected.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has declared with authority that either you vote for Harris, or this “may well be the last real vote you ever get to cast.”

I have long criticized the apocalyptic, democracy-ending predictions of Biden, Harris and others as ignoring the safeguards in our system against authoritarian power.

Nevertheless, Harris supporters have ratcheted up the rhetoric to a level of pure hysteria. Recently, Michael Cohen, a convicted felon and Trump’s disbarred former lawyer, told MSNBC that if Trump wins the election, he will “get rid of the judiciary and get rid of the Congress.”

Recently, MSNBC host Al Sharpton and regular Donny Deutsch warned viewers that they will likely be added to an enemies “list” for some type of roundup after a Trump election.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow also joined in the theme of a final stand before the gulag: “For that matter, what convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants? So, yes, I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was quick to add her own name to a list that seems to be constantly updated by the media. She told podcast host Kara Swisher, “I mean, it sounds nuts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy threw me in jail.”

On ABC’s “The View,” the hosts are becoming indistinguishable from tinfoil-hatted subway prophets. Whoopi Goldberg even explained how Trump is already committed to being a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”

Of course, assuming that Cohen is wrong that there will be no courts after a Trump victory, this would require federal judges to sign off on the rounding up of MSNBC personalities, all gay people, all reporters, and, of course, Whoopi Goldberg.

All that is required is for over two centuries of constitutional order to fail suddenly, and for virtually every constitutional actor in our system to suddenly embrace tyranny.

Those pushing this hysteria often curiously cite the January 6 riot as proof that the end is near. Yet that horrible day was the vindication, not the expiration, of our constitutional system. The system worked. The riot was put down. Congress, including Republicans, reassembled and certified Biden as the next president.

In the courts, many Trump-appointed judges ruled against challenges to the election.

Our system was put through a Cat 5 stress test and did not even sway for a moment.

Nevertheless, the same voices are being heard on the same media outlets with doomsday scenarios.

Former Acting US Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” ominously, “We are looking at a very possible constitutional crisis and one that’s going to make January 6, 2021, look like a dress rehearsal. And this year, the rogues have had four years to go pro and perfect the big lie.”

In other words: Be afraid, very afraid.

Then, in a New York Times column, Katyal lays out scenarios premised on a complete breakdown of the oldest and most stable democratic system in history.

It is like telling passengers on an ocean liner that we will all drown and then whispering that this is “assuming the crew intentionally scuttles the ship, all bulkheads and sealed departments fail, and every lifeboat and life preserver is discarded.”

But then we are all going to die.

The only way to avoid that watery grave (with the death of democracy itself)? Vote Democratic.

There is, however, some good news in all of this: Despite years of alarmist predictions from Biden, Harris, the press, and pundits, the public is not buying it.

It is not because they particularly like Trump. Many of his supporters seem poised to vote for him despite viewing him as polarizing and, at times, obnoxious.

No, it is because the American voter has a certain innate resistance to being played as a chump. Many of the same figures claiming that democracy is at stake supported ballot cleansing to remove Trump and others from the ballots. They supported the weaponization of the legal process in New York against Trump. Likewise, as Harris insists that she is the only hope for fundamental rights, many cannot fail to notice that she is supporting an unprecedented system of censorship that one court called “Orwellian.”

None of this means that the choice between Trump and Harris is easy. However, Harris’ claim to be the only hope for democracy is proving as tin-eared as running on pure “joy.”

Voters are clearly demanding more than a political pitch of abject fear mixed with illusive joy.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

With existing home sales ‘re-slumping’ back to the lowest SAAR levels since 2010, hope for the US housing market remains in the new homes market (where consensus believes that sales will jump 0.6% MoM after last month’s 4.7% plunge).

Hope remains alive apparently as new home sales rose 4.1% MoM. The noisy YoY data is back at +6.3%…

Source: Bloomberg

The total New Home Sales SAAR is 738k – the highest since May 2023…

Source: Bloomberg

 The last three months have seen significant downward revisions to the new home sales SAAR…

Source: Bloomberg

The median new home price rose modestly MoM, but remains in a relatively tight range still…

Source: Bloomberg

What will happen to prices now that The Fed has started cutting rates? Spoiler Alert: This rebound in new home sales is over!!!

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, NAR cheerleader Lawrence Yun blames politics for the lack of serious rebound, despite lower mortgage rates:

“Perhaps, some consumers are hesitating about moving forward with a major expenditure like purchasing a home before the upcoming election.”

We are sure Kamala has a ‘solution’ for those higher prices and lower affordability.

A fast-moving investigation into a deadly E. coli outbreak linked to the McDonald’s Quarter Pounder has left one person dead and dozens hospitalized. The probe prompted Taylor Farms to recall onion batches produced at its Colorado factory, which is suspected to be the source of the contamination. 

Taylor Farms, the supplier of onions to the McDonald’s locations involved in the multistate health investigation, announced that it has not yet detected E. coli in its products. However, Bloomberg noted that the commercial farm recalled the onions “out of an abundance of caution.”

Meanwhile, another big customer of Taylor Farms, US Foods, the largest supplier of food to food service operations in the country, issued a recall notification for Taylor Farms and Cross Valley Farms’ onion, urging restaurants nationwide that it supplies produce: “DESTROY THE PRODUCT.”  

The US Foods notice shows customers the affected onion products in various forms that must be destroyed.

The recall comes one day after the CDC investigated a deadly E. coli outbreak caused by McDonald’s Quarter Pound hamburgers with raw onions. A CDC post on X said 49 people across 10 states have been sickened, and one person has died.

E. COLI OUTBREAK: CDC is investigating 49 illnesses in 10 states linked to McDonald’s Quarter Pounder hamburgers. If you ate a Quarter Pounder hamburger from McDonald’s and have severe symptoms of E. coli, contact your healthcare provider. https://t.co/g87itkupCQ pic.twitter.com/gHzUKCnTi9

— CDC (@CDCgov) October 22, 2024

Shares of MCD tumbled as much as 10% on the news on Tuesday- with shares Thursday morning still at the lows. 

The origin of the E. coli outbreak is still unclear. However, there is growing concern over food security risks as mega-corporations continue sourcing migrants for critical roles within the nation’s food supply chain. This could heighten the risk of contamination and disease spread. A serious conversation on this alarming issue is urgently needed on Capitol Hill. 

After yesterday’s mixed bag of ‘soft’ survey data from regional Feds (showing prices re-acclerating once again), we get the preliminary October prints form S&P Globals’ PMIs this morning with expectations mixed.

Both the Manufacturing (47.8 vs 47.3 prior) and Services (55.3 vs 55.2 prior) survey data was better than expected (47.5 and 55.0 respectively) as hard data has improved consistently in the last month…

Source: Bloomberg

While the Manufacturing survey did improve, it remains in contraction territory for the third straight month.

 

Commenting on the data, Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence said:

“October saw business activity continue to grow at an encouragingly solid pace, sustaining the economic upturn that has been recorded in the year to date into the fourth quarter. The October flash PMI is consistent with GDP growing at an annualized rate of around 2.5%.

“Demand has also strengthened, as signalled by new order inflows hitting the highest for nearly one-and-a-half years, albeit with both output and sales growth limited to the services economy.

“Sales are being stimulated in part by more competitive pricing, which has in turn helped drive selling price inflation for goods and services down to the lowest since the initial pandemic slump in early 2020. These weaker price pressures are consistent with inflation running below the Fed’s 2% target.

However, it’s not all ‘awesome’…

“Businesses nevertheless remain cautious about hiring, leading to a third month of modest payroll reductions. Firms are worried in particular about uncertainty caused by the Presidential Election.

But perhaps the trend towards a Trump victory is starting to creep into business leaders minds…

“More encouragingly, confidence in the longer, year-ahead, outlook has improved as companies hope that a stabler post-election environment is more conducive to growth. This is especially so in the manufacturing sector, where factories hope that the current soft patch in production and sales will reverse as the uncertainty caused by the political environment passes.”

Of course, its an election month, so we really shouldnt be surprised when the data ‘beats’ expectations.

 

Authored by Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

While most national attention is on the top-of-the-ticket race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, control of Congress will be equally consequential.

Republicans currently hold a narrow majority of eight seats in the House, meaning they can only spare three defections on big votes. Democrats, with four independents, hold a one-seat majority in the Senate and the tie-breaking vote.

While Republicans are favored to reclaim the Senate, the fate of the House remains more uncertain.

Whoever is president will need full control of Congress to get much done during their term.

House Republicans seek to grow their thin, ideologically divided majority and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has indicated his intention to seek reelection as speaker.

Democrats are seeking to reclaim the majority, which they controlled from 2019 to 2023, and to place House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in the speaker’s chair.

Of the 435 House races, there are around two dozen that are expected to ultimately determine control of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress.

Each race listed here is rated by the Cook Political Report as a “toss-up,” making these races among the hardest to predict.

New York

Republican control of the House is largely due to the party’s victories in New York in 2022, when several Republicans won districts that had voted for candidate Joe Biden just two years prior.

While the expected red wave didn’t fully materialize nationwide, there was a notable Republican surge in New York.

The most surprising win was Rep. Mike Lawler’s (R-N.Y.) defeat of incumbent Rep. Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the then-chair of the Democrats’ House campaign arm.

Lawler, whose district lies just north of New York City, won by a 0.6 percent margin in an upset that shocked even bullish Republicans.

This year, Lawler is leading his Democratic opponent, Mondaire Jones, by just one point, an Oct. 3 Emerson College poll shows.

Meanwhile, Reps. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) and Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.)—both of whom represent Biden-voting districts—are also seeking to hold onto their closely contested seats.

Molinaro won by just around a 1.6 percent margin, while D’Esposito enjoyed a more comfortable 3.6 percent.

Current polling results for both candidates lie in the margin of error: the most recent polling of each race has each trailing the Democrat candidate by three points.

However, other polling showed D’Esposito in a stronger position, leading earlier polling by six points.

Although the results in 2022 suggested New York could be trending Republican, it remains to be seen if the party can maintain that momentum in 2024.

California

Equally important to Republicans’ narrow reclamation of the House in 2022 was California, where Republicans also made gains in districts outside of the blue strongholds that dot the state’s coast.

Now, several GOP incumbents face tight reelection battles to hold on to those districts.

Five California Republicans—Reps. John Duarte, David Valadao, Mike Garcia, Ken Calvert, and Michelle Steel—are in extremely close races. All but one of these districts voted for Biden in 2020, highlighting their competitive nature.

Duarte narrowly won his central California seat in 2022 with 50.2 percent to his Democratic opponent’s 49.8 percent, a difference of just 0.4 percent. Polling this cycle shows them neck and neck, with the latest poll giving the Democrat a 1-point edge.

Valadao, who won by a 3-point margin in 2022, faces a much closer race this time, with recent polling showing the race tied.

Garcia won by 6.4 points last cycle, but polling shows him trailing by two points in his northern Los Angeles district.

Calvert and Steel both won by more than four points in 2022. This time around, Steel is again ahead by four points, while Calvert is tied with his Democratic opponent.

Holding these seats is vital for the Republicans to maintain or grow their House majority in 2024.

Rust Belt

While Republicans may be on the defensive in blue strongholds like New York and California, Democrats are similarly on the defensive in two of this election’s most crucial states: Michigan and Pennsylvania.

At the presidential level, these two states are expected to play a huge role in determining the ultimate victor in the election.

These states, along with Wisconsin, were once known as the “Blue Wall” for their long streak of backing Democrats and formed the backbone of their electoral strategy.

Since Trump, however, Republicans have seen a resurgence in the region as its many white working-class voters move over to the GOP camp.

In both 2016 and 2020, these three states, particularly Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, were decided by razor-thin margins.

In Michigan—generally considered the most liberal of the three—Republicans are vying to flip control of two open seats abandoned by Reps. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).

While Slotkin won by 5 percent in 2022 and Kildee won by 10 percent, polling shows that the two races are on track to be far more competitive this time.

Republicans lead by four points in Slotkin’s 7th Congressional District, according to polling from early October, and by a single point margin in Kildee’s 8th Congressional District, according to polling from the beginning of August.

Picking up one or both of these seats would represent a major gain for Republicans, who stand to benefit from the loss of the two Democratic incumbents.

Over in Pennsylvania, considered the most consequential swing state this cycle, Reps. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) and Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) are seeking to hold their seats.

Wild, representing Allentown and its environs, won by a narrow two-point margin in 2022.

Recent polling suggests she’s on track to hold the seat, with the most recent poll ending Oct. 3 finding a six-point lead for Wild.

Cartwright, meanwhile, won with 51 percent to Republicans’ 48 percent in 2022. Polling this cycle shows a 3.1 percent lead for Cartwright, though low sample sizes in these polls mean the race is still within the margin of error.

Arizona

Arizona, another battleground state, is home to some of the most contested races in the 2024 cycle.

Two Republican incumbents, Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.), face tough reelections in districts that narrowly voted for Biden in 2020.

Schweikert won his 1st Congressional District seat in 2022 by less than 1 percent of the vote after the district backed Biden by 1.5 percent in 2020.

Polling shows a slight edge for Democrats, who led by 1 percent in a poll that concluded on Aug. 13, though two earlier polls showed a tie. More recent polling isn’t available.

Ciscomani won his 6th district seat by similarly thin margins in 2022, securing 50 percent to Democrats’ 49 percent. Like Schweikert, his district backed Biden in 2020 by around 1.1 percent.

There’s no recent polling available for Ciscomani’s race.

Retaining the districts is crucial for Republicans to grow their House majority, with both expected to be decided by razor-thin margins in 2024.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

• Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan are emerging as key players in the rare earth mineral market.

• These countries offer vast reserves, political stability, and a willingness to develop their resources, attracting interest from Western powers, China, and Russia.

• Securing access to rare earth minerals is crucial for countries to achieve their clean energy goals and reduce dependence on China, which currently dominates the market.

Securing reliable and strategic supply chains for rare earth minerals has become a geopolitical battleground for world superpowers in the intensifying context of the global clean energy transition. Decarbonizing the global economy will require unfathomable amounts of clean energy infrastructure from solar panels and wind turbines to lithium-ion batteries for energy storage and to power electric vehicles. All of these are going to require a whole heck of a lot of primary materials, and especially metals, many of which fall under the category of ‘rare earths.’

The term rare earth mineral is a bit of a misnomer, as these elements are not really that scarce. But global production capacity is relatively limited compared to demand, as the need for these materials has only recently skyrocketed as the world finally gets serious about a major energy pivot. Shoring up reliable and affordable access to these minerals is therefore a critical step in staying competitive in a fast-growing and fast-changing sector. And so far, China is setting the pace for such acquisitions and, in doing so, blowing its competition away.

Beijing has been eagerly acquiring rare earth reserves and contracts in emerging markets across the world for years now, resulting in what is currently an effective chokehold on global supply chains.

Today, China is home to 34% of the world’s rare earths, carried out 70% of global rare earth mining in 2022, and represents at least 85% of global capacity to process rare earth ores into manufacturing materials. What is more, China has managed to hold its distinction as the only large-scale producer of heavy rare earth ores on the planet thanks to “decades of state investment, export controls, cheap labour and low environmental standards,” the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies asserts in its 2023 report on China’s rare earths dominance and policy responses.

China’s outsized role has led to a dangerous level of international reliance on Chinese exports to meet global and national energy and climate goals. Becoming competitive with China and easing this imbalance will therefore require other global powers to ramp up their own efforts to secure supply contracts for these elements in the places where they are naturally occurring and where their extraction is relatively affordable.

The United States and China have already faced off for rare earth dominance in Latin America, but the U.S. has been relatively unsuccessful to get a significant toehold in the so-called ‘lithium triangle’ of Argentina, Chile and Bolivia. Africa has significant reserves of rare earth minerals, but is generally characterized by political instability and corruption which dampen its appeal to would-be investors. As a result, the hottest new battleground for rare earth contracts is currently emerging in Central Asia. 

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are home to vast quantities of valuable rare earth minerals, and seem to have the political and economic conditions that the West is looking for.

“Unlike in the West, Central Asian governments are enthusiastic about the prospect of turning their vast deposits of [rare earth minerals and rare metals] into a new source of revenue for the local economies,” The Interpreter recently reported.

Kazakhstan is already “taking strategic steps to strengthen its position in the global electric vehicle (EV) battery market by increasing the output of critical metals,” according to reporting from Dario, and the Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has even referred to these materials as the “new oil”.

The massive central Asian nation has already signed deals with the European Union and the United Kingdom, and could potentially be an amenable trading partner for the United States as well. 

The only problem is that Western powers are not the only major economies with their sights set on Central Asian resource riches.

China and Russia are also eager to tap into these nascent markets, and have certain competitive advantages over the West.

“By virtue of history, geography, and regional and cultural particularities and dependencies, Central Asian countries are bound with Russia and China,” the Interpreter reports.

By the same token, however, these former soviet republics are navigating the solidification of their national identities, and a move away from Russian control could also serve as a point of strategic interest.

Authored by Peter Jacobsen via the Foundation for Economic Education,

In the 2020 election, an interesting candidate made his way onto the scene for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination: Andrew Yang. Yang made a splash in particular for his promise to give everyone $1,000.

Andrew Yang’s campaign strategy took a similar approach to Trump’s 2016 campaign in hyper-focusing on a single issue. For Trump, the single issue was immigration. For Yang, that issue was universal basic income (UBI).

Yang’s version of UBI was alluring in its simplicity. Every person in the country would receive a nice, round $1,000 per month. It didn’t matter if you were rich or poor, old or young. A vote for Yang was a vote for cash.

Many from his own party denounced the idea of giving rich people $1,000 per month. But Yang held strong to the payment being universal. By making sure every person gets $1,000, you avoid some incentive issues and the bureaucracy that accompanies typical welfare programs.

Why UBI?

Why have a UBI at all? Yang gave several reasons. One primary concern Yang had was that technology would soon begin to displace many low-skilled jobs. UBI would help the country get ready to take care of displaced workers.

But Yang claimed a myriad of benefits for UBI beyond just a safety net. UBI would free people up to be creative and entrepreneurial. A guaranteed income would provide people with the security they need to pursue their passions, start businesses, or go back to school. Contrary to the claims of detractors, a UBI wouldn’t increase laziness—it would improve people’s productivity!

Sometimes, UBI supporters even highlighted how it would make government smaller if it replaced our current complicated welfare system. Though, to my knowledge, no advocate of this policy has ever explained a realistic path toward abolishing current welfare programs.

So, is Yang right? Would UBI free the inner entrepreneur in all Americans, or would it just mean some people would engage in more leisure? Let’s look at the evidence.

The Disappointing Basic Income Study

Researchers Eva Vivalt, Elizabeth Rhodes, Alexander W. Bartik, David E. Broockman, and Sarah Miller’s working paper, titled “The Employment Effects of a Guaranteed Income: Experimental Evidence from Two U.S. States,” was recently put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

The study “leverag[ed] an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years.” What were the results?

First, it made the recipients poorer:

“Overall, the transfers led to a reduction in annual total individual income of about $1,500 in our main survey measure, compared to the control group.”

Why? Well, people worked less (1.3 hours per week less) and stayed unemployed for longer!

Not only do the recipients work less; this happened to other adult members of the household as well.

Unemployment duration “increased by 1.1 months” for recipients.

But did people use this time to find a better job? It doesn’t seem like it.

Recipients appear to be more selective in their applications, but the authors say, based on their survey measurements, “We do not see much in the way of differences in the types of jobs participants applied for,” and “the results do not support any changes in quality of employment.”

Were people doing other productive things in unemployment, though? The results are unimpressive.

The authors examine whether the receipt of basic income increases entrepreneurship. While they find people claiming to have more entrepreneurial intention, this does not translate into actual entrepreneurial activity.

What about education? Do people go back to school? Mostly no.

The authors say, “By and large, we do not observe significantly improved education outcomes in our sample, though there are some indicators of minor improvements.”

So what did people do with the extra time they got from working less?

In short, the answer is, they relaxed.

In concluding the results of the paper, the authors say, “[P]articipants in our study reduced their labor supply because they placed a high value, at the margin, on additional leisure.”

The authors provide an even more in-depth breakdown of time usage from their study. They estimate the number of minutes per day allocated doing different activities. The figure below gives a breakdown:

 

The results? Well, apart from the “other activities” category, the biggest increases in time were non-commuting transportation, social leisure, and solitary leisure. Some time was also spent in home production (doing work around the house) and “self-care.”

 

On the flip side, people spent less time working, sleeping, caring for children, generating income, and engaging with their communities. Furthermore, less time was spent on self-improvement, searching for jobs, and exercise.

The numbers here may seem small, but if you apply this to millions of people daily, it becomes very weighty.

Not all of the results were statistically significant, but the major point is, overall, people used the time they gained from working less to engage in leisure, and there is no evidence of an increased use of time in other categories UBI proponents purport to care about, such as creative output, entrepreneurship, community engagement, self-improvement, or even spending time with children.

Where does this leave UBI advocates? Well, at best the evidence shows a UBI would cause people to work less and relax more. Insofar as the case for UBI is built on unleashing the stifled engine of human creativity, it seems like UBI isn’t up for the job.

Workplace safety is critical. But did you know that almost one in three workers have experienced or know someone who has experienced severe harm as a consequence of their work in the last two years?

For this graphic, Visual Capitalist has partnered with Lloyd’s Register Foundation to explore the landscape of workplace safety and determine which industry is the most dangerous.

Evaluating Workplace Safety Challenges

Safety at work is challenging to evaluate as every industry has its oversight mechanisms, and every nation has its own legislation that influences how each industry functions.

So, sidestepping this challenge, Lloyd’s Register Foundation chose to evaluate workplace safety by going directly to the workers, asking 147,000 people from 142 nations whether they or someone they know had experienced harm in the last two years.

Here is what they found, broken down by industry:

 

The Importance of Training

 

The industries that produce the most harm are invariably manual industries, such as fishing, agriculture, and mining, where people use dangerous equipment daily.

However, training could also significantly contribute to an industry’s workplace safety. The World Risk Poll also evaluated the number of people who received training in their respective industries. 

They found that three of the top four industries where respondents reported the most harm (agriculture, fishing, and construction) also appeared in the top four industries where the fewest instances of safety training were reported.

Making Work a Safer Place

Being safe at work is critical to a healthy work-life balance. Understanding workplace safety and the harm people face in each industry is essential when deciding on economic policy or researching an industry’s health.

Are you interested in learning more about the safety challenges faced by ordinary people all over the globe?

The World Risk Poll covers more than just workplace safety challenges. It explores many risks, from perceptions of climate change to how long people can survive without employment.

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House China panel has called on the State Department and the Pentagon to take stronger action to address “problematic” Chinese research in the Arctic that could be used for both civilian and military applications, saying that these activities may pose significant security risks to the United States and its NATO allies.

The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) outlined its concerns in an Oct. 16. letter addressed to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“In recent years, the PRC has increased its effort to seek access to and exert influence in the Arctic, including expanding dual civil-military research efforts in the region,” Reps. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), chairman and ranking Democrat member of the panel, respectively, wrote in a letter, using the acronym of communist China’s official name, the People’s Republic of China.

“The Arctic is critical to U.S. national security interests and the defense of our homeland, and we must work with our allies to preserve our defense treaty commitments.”

The lawmakers pointed out that China’s “access to the Arctic for satellite communication ground stations and scientific research greatly expands the operational effectiveness of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and furthers the PRC’s global ambitions.”

The bipartisan panel wants to know, among other things, how the U.S. government evaluates the threats posed by Chinese research involvement in the Arctic, especially “in terms of missile defense, submarine detection, and satellite tracking capabilities.”

The lawmakers requested a response by Nov. 15.

China has teamed up with Russia to expand its military and coast guard presence in the Arctic region, which harbors an estimated 13 percent of the planet’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Earlier this month, China announced that its coast guard vessels had ventured into the Arctic Ocean for the first time, conducting patrols alongside Russian ships in waters where the CCP had long sought to exert its influence.

Despite being 900 miles away from the Arctic Circle, China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” state and has added the “Polar Silk Road” to its Belt and Road Initiative, a multibillion-dollar project aimed at bolstering Beijing’s geopolitical sway by building ports, railways, and other infrastructure worldwide.

China’s Research Stations in NATO Allies

Norway’s Svalbard archipelago is a crucial location for the CCP’s Arctic ambitions, the lawmakers pointed out in the letter.

The first Chinese research station, the Arctic Yellow River Station, was established in Svalbard in 2004. Among the organizations operating at the station is the China Research Institute of Radiowave Propagation (CRIRP), a unit of China Electronics Technology Group Corp., which the Pentagon designated as a military-controlled company.

The lawmakers said that some CRIRP projects in Svalbard, as registered at the Norwegian government’s Research in Svalbard portal, could have “significant military uses.”

“CRIRP replicated these projects in its research collocation with PLA units, enhancing the PRC’s military capabilities, particularly in areas such as missile guidance, over-the-horizon radar detection, satellite communications, space object tracking, early warning systems, electronic warfare, submarine detection, and strategic communication and control in polar regions,” LJ Eads, who founded the Data Abyss, an open-source intelligence platform funded by the Pentagon, was quoted as saying in the letter.

In addition to Norway, China also operates research centers in another NATO member state, Iceland.

The China–Iceland Arctic Science Observatory (CIAO) was formally established in 2018, but according to lawmakers, data collection began in 2013, a year after the Polar Research Institute of China and the University of Iceland signed an agreement to establish CIAO.

According to the letter, data collected by CIAO have never been made publicly available despite assurances of open access.

The lawmakers expressed concern that China could use this data to improve the “accuracy of its radar systems that detect submarines, ships, and aircraft across long distances, thereby improving military surveillance and target tracking.”

The letter cited a 2021 research paper, stating that the riometer and antenna system deployed at CIAO “covers a large area in the Denmark Strait.”

Gregory Falco, a professor of systems engineering at Cornell University, told the House panel that this system can monitor the strategic submarine traffic of the U.S. and NATO through the GIUK Gap, the naval choke point encompassing the seas between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK.

Lawmakers also noted that by 2023, the Polar Research Institute of China, a subordinate directly under China’s Ministry of Natural Resources, had poured approximately $5 million into the observatory, covering almost all of its expenses.

“Although some Icelandic stakeholders raised concerns regarding the security implications of the research conducted and planned at CIAO, no formal security review has taken place,” the letter reads. “Icelandic law currently lacks specific provisions for national security-related review in such cases.”

Iceland has no military, and under a 1951 defense treaty, the United States is responsible for the island nation’s defense under the NATO umbrella.

The lawmakers urged Washington to support Iceland in conducting a national security review of research activities carried out by Chinese scientists and to halt any Chinese research used for military purposes on Icelandic territory.

The State Department said it doesn’t comment on congressional correspondence but highlighted the U.S. concerns about the CCP’s growing presence in the Arctic region.

“We have growing concerns about the PRC’s increased activities and presence in the Arctic, including dual-use capable scientific research, which could be used for future military operations,” a department spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.

“As the PRC engages in the Arctic, we encourage it to uphold international standards of transparency, rule of law, and accountability and to abide by its international legal obligations.”

The Pentagon didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication time.