Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Donald Trump appears to back Saudi Arabia in Qatar stand off with Gulf states - Independent

Donald Trump appears to back Saudi Arabia in Qatar stand off with Gulf states

US president weighs in on escalating diplomatic crisis with tweet suggesting support for allies in Riyadh's decision

Donald Trump has appeared to

side with Saudi Arabia in its diplomatic stand-off with Qatar, referencing his recent trip to the Saudi capital of Riyadh in which he vowed to end support for Islamic extremism.

"During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!" the US president tweeted on Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia, along with Gulf neighbours the UAE and Bahrain as well as Egypt, moved to isolate the tiny kingdom on Monday in a coordinated severing of diplomatic ties. The row could have manifold economic and political effects for the Middle East, as well as alter the course of the region's many conflicts.

On Tuesday, supermarket shelves across the country were empty after panic buying and Doha's Hamad International Airport was eerily quiet as the first concrete effects of the rift were felt.

A statement from Monday carried on SPA, the Saudi state news agency, accused Doha of harbouring "terrorist and sectarian groups that aim to destabilise the region including the Muslim Brotherhood, Isis and Al-Qaeda," as well as alleged Iranian-backed Shia militia activity in east Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

The suggestion that Qatar is aiding and abetting Shia Iran - the majority Sunni Gulf's arch-rival - is particularly sensitive. Doha has called the claims "baseless".

“The Qatari Government will take all necessary measures... to thwart attempts to influence and harm the Qatari society and economy,” a statement from the foreign ministry said.

It went on to describe the crisis as being fuelled by “absolute fabrications” stemming from last month's hacking of Qatar’s state-run news agency.

The row has been caused in part by backlash over Qatar’s decision to rescue 24 members of the royal family, as well as two Saudi nationals, who were kidnapped by Shia paramilitaries while on a hunting trip in southern Iraq - a deal exclusively revealed by The Independent in April.

Doha’s agreement to pay the extraordinary $500m (£389m) ransom greatly angered its Gulf neighbours, who have long accused it of funding or otherwise supporting controversial groups and meddling in regional affairs, particularly through state-owned broadcaster al-Jazeera.

Iran, which Mr Trump singled out as a key source of funding and support for extremist groups during his two-day trip to Riyadh last month, is a secondary target of the decision by Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Nikki Haley warns US may pull out of UN Human Rights Council over 'anti-Israel bias' - Independent

Nikki Haley warns US may pull out of UN Human Rights Council over 'anti-Israel bias'

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the US is "reviewing its participation" in the Human Rights Council over what said is the group's "chronic anti-Israel bias".

The Geneva-based Council made up of 47 member countries is beginning a three-week session and Ms Haley said the US "sees some areas for significant strengthening" in the group.

The Council's critical stance of Israel has long been a contentious issue for the US, Israel's main ally. Ms Haley has said in the past that Israel is the “only country permanently on the body’s calendar.”

Despite remaining allies, former President Obama had an icy relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In fact, in late December 2016 during the waning moments of the Obama administration, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Then-UN Ambassador Samantha Power chose not to veto the resolution as was normal procedure.

The Council's members have taken a strong position against Israel's continued occupation of territory seized in the 1967 Middle East war, its treatment of Palestinians, and its building of Jewish settlements.

Most countries in the UN system and international bodies consider the settlements illegal since they are built in areas Palestinians consider part of an eventual independent state.

Ms Haley used Venezuela's alleged human rights violations as an example of anti-Israel bias. She noted the Council pursued five resolutions against Israel in its March session but none against the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

"If Venezuela cannot, it should voluntarily step down from its seat on the Human Rights Council until it can get its own house in order. Being a member of this council is a privilege, and no country who is a human rights violator should be allowed a seat at the table," she said.

Ms Haley is set to host a side event in Geneva specifically regarding the South American nation, where at least 65 people have died and hundreds have been injured in continued anti-government protests since the end of March.

Venezuela responded to Ms Haley's comments saying "needs to be free of politicisation and double standards".

The US Ambassador also called on the Council to vote on resolutions against Syria, Eritrea, Belarus, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Some activists urged Washington to focus on abuses at home. "It's hard to take Ambassador Haley seriously on US support for human rights in light of Trump administration actions like the Muslim ban and immigration crackdowns," Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told Reuters.

The US "must get its own house in order and make human rights at home a priority - then, it can begin to credibly demand the same of other countries abroad."

A New U.S. Environmental Alliance Is Trying to Take Trump's Place on the World Stage - TIME

A New U.S. Environmental Alliance Is Trying to Take Trump's Place on the World Stage

Justin Worland

Updated: 5:59 PM ET | Originally published: 5:43 PM ET

President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change put a nail in the coffin of formal American leadership on global warming. Once the move is official, the U.S. will play no role in the international process of setting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reporting progress to the global community.

Rather than let that happen, a large coalition of American cities, states, businesses and educational institutions are launching something akin to a shadow government, intended to take America's place on the global climate stage. The group We Are Still In, which was announced Monday, could submit their own targets to the United Nations and report on their progress alongside the formal commitment from the U.S. federal government.

"The current executive branch... can, and will, speak to its own willingness to move forward on climate action in the United States," former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the UN special envoy for cities and climate change and an organizer of the effort, wrote in a letter to the UN climate change body announcing the new group. "It cannot, however, determine the pace of progress achieved by U.S. cities, states, the private sector, and civil society. That freedom to lead is part-and-parcel of our federal system."

Bloomberg has also committed to paying the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that oversees international talks on global warming.

The U.S. committed under President Obama to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28% by 2025, but researchers now predict they will fall no more than 12.6% with Trump's rollback of environmental regulations. Officials from the more than 1,000 groups represented in the new coalition believe they make up a substantial portion of that difference. Among the signatories are hundreds of cities, the most populous states including New York and California and Fortune 500 corporations like Microsoft and Target.

Many of the group's members sought to show their commitment to greenhouse gas emissions reductions since the months leading up to the Paris Agreement, but those efforts tended not to involve the full cross-section of local governments, corporations and nonprofit institutions. The new coalition aims to advance that work on a far larger scale.

"The existence of these coalitions of the willing is nothing new," says Paul Bodnar, who served as senior director for energy and climate change at the National Security Council under Obama and is now with the Rocky Mountain Institute. "What’s new is working together and the second is aggregating and projecting the importance of that action to the international community."

The group faces significant challenges before it can formally report on its progress to the U.N. Such measurements can be difficult to tabulate, a challenge complicated by the overlapping nature of many of the entities. It also remains to be seen how the large group will deal with competing personalities all of whom may want to be seen as the face of U.S. efforts to address climate change.

Still, the effort has potential to repair some of the nation's standing among those fighting against global warming around the world. "I am so moved and enthused that so many states and enterprises in the United States of America want to travel this path with us,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to the New York Times, after Trump's announcement. “We will travel it together.”

Monday, June 5, 2017

Balance of power in the Middle East - Bloomberg

The Middle East's balance of power has just been disrupted by one of the biggest diplomatic shocks in years.

Overnight, an alliance led by Saudi Arabia severed commercial and diplomatic ties with Qatar. It was an unprecedented move designed to punish the Gulf state for its ties with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.

Qatar may be tiny - about half the size of New Jersey - but it's a financial superpower. The country is the world's biggest producer of liquefied gas and, through its $335 billion sovereign wealth fund, owns stakes in companies from Barclays to Russian oil giant Rosneft.

The move also poses a dilemma for the Trump administration. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are both American allies as are Saudi's partners - Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE. Qatar is also home to the U.S. military’s Mideast command. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urged all parties to resolve their differences.

It's not entirely clear what Saudi wants. But it's a fair bet that it expects Qatar to come to heel over Iran and join its campaign to isolate the Islamic Republic. If Qatar resists, it will only add to the region's instability.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain cut ties to Qatar - Al Jazeera

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain cut ties to Qatar

Qatar calls decision by Gulf nations and Egypt 'unjustified', saying allegations against Doha have 'no basis in fact'.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain say they are severing diplomatic relations with Qatar.

The Saudi kingdom made the announcement via its state-run Saudi Press Agency early on Monday, saying it was taking action for what it called the protection of national security.

The news agency released a statement in which it accused Qatar of "harbouring a multitude of terrorist and sectarian groups that aim to create instability in the region".

The three Gulf states gave Qatari visitors and residents two weeks to leave their countries, Reuters news agency reported.

Saudi also closed the border and halted air and sea traffic with Qatar, urging "all brotherly countries and companies to do the same".

The statement appeared to be timed in concert with an earlier announcement by Bahrain, which was similarly cutting ties and halting air and sea traffic between the two countries.

'Unjustified'

Qatar's foreign ministry said it regretted the measures by the Arab nations, calling the decisions "unjustified".

"The measures are unjustified and are based on claims and allegations that have no basis in fact," the statement said, adding that the decisions would "not affect the normal lives of citizens and residents".

"The aim is clear, and it is to impose guardianship on the state. This by itself is a violation of its (Qatar's) sovereignty as a state," it added.

Bahrain's foreign ministry issued a statement saying it would withdraw its diplomatic mission from the Qatari capital, Doha, within 48 hours and that all Qatari diplomats should leave Bahrain within the same period.

Egypt also announced the closure of its airspace and seaports for all Qatari transportation "to protect its national security", the foreign ministry said in a statement.

WATCH: What's behind recent media attacks against Qatar?

UAE-based carriers Emirates, Etihad Airways and flydubai said they would suspend flights to and from Qatar beginning Tuesday morning.

It was not immediately clear how Monday's announcement would affect other airlines.

A Saudi-led coalition which for more than two years has been fighting Iran-backed rebels in Yemen separately announced that Qatar was no longer welcome in the alliance.

Yemen's internationally recognised government also cut ties with Qatar, accusing it of working with its enemies in the Iran-aligned Houthi movement, state news agency Saba reported.

A senior Iranian official said the measures by the Arab nations would not help end the crisis in the Middle East.

"The era of cutting diplomatic ties and closing borders ... is not a way to resolve crisis ... As I said before, aggression and occupation will have no result but instability," Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted, referring to the coalition's involvement in Yemen.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave a statement on Monday while on state visit in Australia, urging the Gulf states to stay united.

"We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences," he said in Sydney.

"If there's any role that we can play in terms of helping them address those, we think it is important that the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) remain united."

Tillerson said despite the impasse, he did not expect it to have "any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally".

"All of those parties you mentioned have been quite unified in the fight against terrorism and the fight against Daesh, ISIS, and have expressed that most recently in the summit in Riyadh," he added, using alternative names for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.

Hacking dispute

The dispute between Qatar and the Gulf's Arab countries escalated after a recent hack of Qatar's state-run news agency. It has spiralled since.

Following the hacking on Tuesday, comments falsely attributed to Qatar's emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, were broadcast in Qatar.

Qatar's government categorically denied that the comments, in which the country's leader expressed support for Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel - while suggesting that US President Donald Trump may not last in power, were ever made.

"There are international laws governing such crimes, especially the cyberattack. [The hackers] will be prosecuted according to the law," Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Qatar's foreign minister, said on Wednesday.

UAE-based Sky News Arabia and Al Arabiya kept running the discredited story, despite the Qatari denials.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Corbyn and Labour surge but Tories are favourites thanks to ‘grey vote’ - Guardian

Corbyn and Labour surge but Tories are favourites thanks to ‘grey vote’

Robert Ford

Sunday 4 June 2017 09.04 AEST

When Theresa May announced the snap election in mid-April, most expected a dull campaign and a foregone conclusion. The prime minister had strong approval ratings and the Conservative party had a huge lead over the Labour opposition. The election looked like an easy way for the Tories to lock in their advantages over a weak opponent.

We should have known better. As the great political philosopher and boxer “Iron” Mike Tyson once observed: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

Labour support has surged in the polls, rising by around eight points in the polling average. The Conservatives have held on to most of their own earlier poll surge, achieved mainly through the mass defection of 2015 Ukip voters, so they remain ahead, but the gap has closed sharply. A lead of over 20 points has halved to under 10, with a lot of disagreement between pollsters. Some polls and projections now suggest May could even end up losing ground this week.

Who should I vote for? The UK election manifestos compared

The smaller parties have been left behind as two-party politics returns with a vengeance. The hopes of the Liberal Democrats for a “Remain surge” have turned to dust, and the party now has a fight on its hands just to hold on to its handful of MPs. Ukip support has collapsed and is on the brink of extinction. Support for the Green party has halved. Voters have not consolidated behind the big two like this for more than a generation.

Such big shifts during campaigns are rare, although not unheard of – the 2010 election campaign, for example, also produced a large swing in the polls but, on that occasion, the projections pointing to a surge in Lib Dem support proved to be mistaken, as they were in 2015 when the campaign polling was more stable.

Will the current Labour surge be a third miss in a row for campaign polling, or are the pollsters – who all made changes to their methods after the 2015 miss – picking up a real shift?

A case can be made either way. Believers in the Labour surge can point to the broader polling evidence – it is not just Labour’s headline support that has improved but Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership ratings have also risen sharply, albeit from a low base, while May’s are down. Labour’s ratings on the issues have also improved, while pollsters suggest that the Tories’ very unpopular “dementia tax” social care proposal is the main policy to have “cut through” with voters during the campaign.

Surge sceptics, however, can also build a convincing case. Labour’s rise in the polls has been concentrated in demographics – in particular, younger voters and former non-voters – who tend to turn out at low levels but are now apparently very keen to vote. The Tories continue to win the other side of the generation game, with a huge and stable lead among pensioners.

Judgments of the Labour surge in the polls – and prospects on 8 June – hinge very strongly on whether the traditional “grey advantage” in turnout is reduced this time. There are two reasons to think it won’t be: the historical record and the record of the polls. Large generation gaps in turnout have been recorded in all the recent British elections, including the very high turnout for the EU and Scottish independence referendums. The polls also have longstanding problems with political engagement – they recruit too many political enthusiasts, and people taking polls tend to exaggerate their likelihood of voting. Pollsters also have a longstanding (and most likely related) tendency to overstate Labour support and understate Tory support – a pattern that has held in every election but one since 1987.

Labour surge sceptics can also draw different conclusions from a deep dive into the polling. While Corbyn has closed the gap on May in the leadership ratings, he still remains a long way behind. Much of Labour’s support still comes from voters who say they back the party but not its leader. Tory voters, by contrast, are rarely conflicted in this way.

Labour’s position on the issues has improved, but the Conservatives retain commanding leads on many of the central issues at stake, such as Brexit, economic management and immigration. Since the “dementia tax” U-turn, events have shifted the campaign agenda on to security and foreign policy, traditionally stronger terrain for the Tories.

The Conservatives remain strong favourites because they still hold the better hand – they retain a poll lead and strong support is from the most reliable voters in the electorate. Labour will require unusual voters to turn out in unlikely numbers. But, as any American knows, such upsets can happen in politics.

Robert Ford is professor of political science at the University of Manchester and the author, with Matthew Goodwin, of Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain

The 5 Overlooked Countries Shaping Russia's Future - TIME

The 5 Overlooked Countries Shaping Russia's Future

Ian Bremmer

Jun 03, 2017

Plenty of ink is being spilled over Russia’s contentious relations with the West these days, and with good reason. But while Russian President Vladimir Putin plays games with the U.S. and Europe — and continues a murky alliance with Syria and Iran — the other countries that will determine Russia’s future shouldn’t be overlooked. Here are five you should be keeping tabs on.

China

Let’s start with the most obvious. Russia had hoped its eastern pivot towards China would make up for lost Western investment and trade ties in the wake of the Ukraine crisis of 2014. U.S./E.U. sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions are estimated to have cost Russia between 1 and 1.5 percent of its GDP in the first year alone; the IMF forecasts the hit could be as much as 9 percent over the medium term. And while China did indeed step up financing for Russian projects (Chinese investment in Russia grew by 172 percent in the first half of 2016), it wasn’t enough to overcome the losses in growth and financing that Western sanctions knocked off in 2016. Making matters worse, Beijing never endorsed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, as Moscow once hoped it would.

But that’s the thing—while China will sign more deals with Russia, it needs no part in Russia’s geopolitical games. China’s happy to do more business with Russia now that the Russians, with fewer options, have to give China favorable terms and prices. But the global status quo has been good to China, and Beijing wants to see it continue, albeit with some modifications; Russia wants to upend it entirely. In addition, China will continue to compete for influence with Russia, particularly in Central Asia. Don’t expect China to become best friends with Russia anytime soon. Or ever.

Japan

Japan has been part of Russia’s Asia outreach for years now—partly to hedge against China, and partly out of hope that Japanese investment in Russia would lead to absorption of Japanese technology, experience and efficiency in Russian industry. While some of that did happen (especially in the energy and automotive sectors), it never hit the levels the Kremlin had hoped.

But when discussing the future of Russia/Japan relations, it’s history and geopolitics that weigh most heavily. Tokyo and Moscow continue to dispute the status of Kuril Islands, a chain of four islands in the Pacific that both countries claim as their own. And to this day, Russia and Japan have failed to sign a peace treaty that would officially end World War II. Then there’s the fact that Japan finds itself in an increasingly challenging geopolitical situation in Asia; China is throwing elbows next door, and North Korea’s kicking up dirt. Russia is not equipped to handle either of those situations; and for all the chaos in U.S. politics at the moment, America’s military prowess still holds sway in the region (as do the 54,000 military personnel stationed in Japan). The U.S. remains the must-have ally in the region if you’re Tokyo. That’s also why Russia would like to edge closer to Japan.

Saudi Arabia

In Syria, Russia has shown it’s ready to rush in where the U.S. still fears to tread. That makes Russia a significant player in the region, more than its economic and military strength would otherwise suggest (Russia is the 12th largest economy, and while it’s 3rd largest in military expenditure, it shells out only about one tenth of what the U.S. does).

While Saudi Arabia and Russia are on opposite sides of the Syrian war, they’ve managed to work together to backstop the fall in oil prices that devastated both countries. There’s also potential here—Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman played a critical role in creating a $10 billion partnership between the Saudi Public Investment Fund and Russia's Direct Investment Fund, and an improved relationship with Saudi Arabia supports Russian efforts to engage the broader Gulf region. And while the Saudis might be glad to have Donald Trump in the White House at the moment, there are no guarantees for what comes next. Given that, it’s good to have options.

Turkey

Russia and Turkey are helmed by two of the world’s most colorful strongmen, and both are prime players in the unfolding Syria drama. In November 2015, Turkey downed a Russian fighter jet that was skirting its airspace; Russia retaliated with trade sanctions, but quickly reached a rapprochement when Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized. This was followed by the shooting of the Russian ambassador by an off-duty police officer in Ankara about a year later.

RISK REPORT

The 5 Biggest Problems for Presidents Trump and Xi to Tackle

In normal times, these things might be cause for war. But as Erdogan chafes under criticism of his government from the West, Russia and Turkey have a greater incentive to work together. Now the countries are pushing to bring the Turkish Stream natural gas pipeline online to shuttle Russian gas to Europe, Turkey is serving as the NATO proxy in the Astana format peace talks on Syria, and Ankara is happy to deflect Western criticism of growing authoritarianism at home by holding up its friendship with Moscow.

Still, Erdogan and Putin don't quite see eye-to-eye on the role that President Bashar al-Assad should play in Syria's future — and the question of a Syrian Kurdish territory, anathema to Turkey, will be another source of suspicion.

Venezuela

The last country on this list may also get the least attention. Venezuela is convulsing, and its citizens are taking to the streets daily to protest Nicolas Maduro and the lack of basic food and medicines. Given that Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, it’s a spectacular fall for one of Latin America’s former powerhouses.

Here is where it gets interesting. Venezuela’s cash-strapped state oil company, PDVSA, owns the America energy company Citgo. In December, PDVSA received a loan from Russian state-oil company Rosneft, in exchange for which it put up 49.9% of Citgo for collateral.

Should PDVSA be unable to repay its debt — a distinct possibility by the end of 2017 — Rosneft will collect its collateral, and a controlling stake in the company would be easily within its reach. Aside from the strategic play to accumulate quality oil assets on the cheap, Putin just loves the idea of owning one of the largest refiners in the U.S.—and he might just get his wish.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

How Cities, States and Businesses Are Already Fighting Climate Change Without Trump - TIME

How Cities, States and Businesses Are Already Fighting Climate Change Without Trump

Posted: 02 Jun 2017 10:11 AM PDT

The response to President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change was swift and harsh—and it wasn’t just environmental groups and progressive politicians. Corporations and state and local officials on both sides of the aisle called the decision a risky move that not only will harm global efforts to halt climate change but also abdicates U.S. leadership around the world.
Beyond the symbolism, however, progress reducing greenhouse gas emissions is likely to continue even as the role of the federal government dwindles. Cities, states and corporations have announced their intention to adhere to the goals of the Paris deal, while other leaders, like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Governor Jerry Brown, will continue to represent the U.S. on the world stage. (Bloomberg has said that his charity will cover the $15 million fee the U.S. would have paid to the United Nations climate change body as part of the accord.)

“Cities and businesses have sort of played second fiddle, they now come to the fore,” says Paul Bodnar of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who helps companies adopt sustainable energy practices. “U.S. leadership continues, albeit in a different form.” Here are some of the ways others are stepping up:

States
Much of U.S. energy policy is set at the state level. State public utility commissions following local laws and regulations control many of the decisions about where Americans get their electricity. That reality presented challenges for President Obama when he tried to push the country away from coal-fired power plants as red states challenged his Clean Power Plan in court. But now the tables have turned, and many state leaders have promised to meet and exceed the goals set in the Paris Agreement even in the absence of Trump.
Following Trump’s announcement, the governors of New York, California and Washington announced the United States Climate Alliance, which commits members to working toward the targets of the Paris Agreement without federal support. Those three states alone represent more than 20% of the country’s GDP and 10% of its greenhouse gas emissions.
“Donald Trump has absolutely chosen the wrong course,” said California’s Brown on a conference call following the announcement Thursday. “California will resist… While our president may be AWOL in the battle against climate change, we’re not. “
Several states had already participated in coalitions and consortia with the same goal in mind prior to Trump’s election. In advance of the Paris Agreement, Brown helped launch a coalition called Under 2 MOU (referring to the target of keeping temperatures from rising more than 2°C by 2100). The coalition, which now includes ten states from across the country, provides a framework for states and other sub-national governments around the world to report on their progress in a transparent way. “We don’t have to wait for the federal government to say jump. We’re already moving,” Brown told TIME at its launch.
Cities
Cities also exercise control over much of how energy is used within their jurisdiction. And in response to Trump’s announcement, nearly 70 mayors of major cities including Los Angeles, New York and Houston made the same commitment to uphold the targets of the Paris Agreement in their own backyards.
After Trump said in his remarks on withdrawing from the agreement that he “was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Pittsburgh mayor Bill Peduto issued an executive order committing the city to the goals of the accord and a rebuke on Twitter:

As the Mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future. https://t.co/3znXGTcd8C
— bill peduto (@billpeduto) June 1, 2017

Many metros are going even further. Nearly 30 cities across the country, from Orlando to Salt Lake City, have committed to getting 100% of their energy from renewable resources as part of a Sierra Club coalition. Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, S.C., is spearheading an effort to create a framework in the U.S. Conference of Mayors to formally support the 100% renewable target. “It was important before this week,” he says. “But it’s made that much more important because of the president’s decision.”
Some global coalitions, including the C40 Cities group sponsored by former New York Mayor Bloomberg, help structure city commitments to fighting climate change and have been working to that end since before the Paris Agreement was reached.
Business
The list of corporations critical of Trump’s decision is long and includes the likes of Silicon Valley tech giants like Apple and Facebook but also oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. Even some coal companies called on Trump to remain in the deal.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Iger both dropped out of Trump’s business advisory councils as a result of the move:

As a matter of principle, I've resigned from the President's Council over the #ParisAgreement withdrawal.
— Robert Iger (@RobertIger) June 1, 2017

Now, attention turns to whether these companies will actually take the fight against climate change into their own hands. While not all will respond the same way, many have already made commitments. Nearly half of Fortune 500 companies have some form of target for renewable energy deployment, greenhouse gas emissions reductions or energy efficiency, according to a report from the WWF and other organizations. And a long list of nearly 100 companies that includes the likes of Walmart, Google and Bank of America have committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Many corporations like Microsoft have introduced internal carbon fees to reduce emissions across the company.
The switch to renewable sources is in part to aid climate change efforts, but the targets also help corporations cut costs. The WWF report estimated that 190 companies saved $3.7 billion in 2016 with projects targeting emissions. Those efforts operate outside the influence of federal policy and will likely continue.
“Simply put, the private sector already chose a low-carbon future,” President Obama said in a statement following Trump’s announcement. “And for the nations that committed themselves to that future, the Paris Agreement opened the floodgates for businesses, scientists, and engineers to unleash high-tech, low-carbon investment and innovation on an unprecedented scale.”

North Korea Missile Tests: Wary Japan Refuses to Panic - NBC News

NEWS JUN 3 2017, 4:34 AM ET

North Korea Missile Tests: Wary Japan Refuses to Panic

by ARATA YAMAMOTO and EOGHAN MACGUIRE

TOKYO — The latest ballistic missile fired by Kim Jong Un's regime plunged into the Sea of Japan earlier this week.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has described such North Korean launches as a "grave threat to our country" and "absolutely not acceptable."

But such warnings appear to be causing little concern on the streets of Tokyo.

"I don't feel any threat, nor has it affected my daily life," said Ryoji Nakajima, a 36-year-old office worker. It was a sentiment shared by several others approached by NBC News in the city's Ginza district.

While Kim's stated aim is to develop a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S. mainland, Japan is also home to some 54,000 U.S. military personnel. And North Korea has said it has military units positioned to strike.

North Korea can already strike anywhere in Japan with its missiles.

In March, Japan held its first civilian evacuation drill for a missile attack amid wariness over the military threat potentially posed by the hermit kingdom.

But Shunji Hiraiwa, an expert in North Korean diplomacy at Nanzan University in Nagoya City, said while many people in Japan "do feel a sense of danger ... I don't think they feel that a war is imminent."

That view was echoed by Narushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.

"Fortunately, right now it's not as if there's a clear and present danger that is sending people into panic," Michishita said.

However, he added that "people have started to understand that it might be possible for North Korea to obtain these capabilities."

Pyongyang has launched a series of missiles as well as carrying out two nuclear tests since the beginning of 2016.

On Thursday, the Pentagon sent aircraft carriers the USS Carl Vinson and USS Ronald Reagan to the Sea of Japan for a three-day drill alongside Tokyo's navy and air force. It involved Japanese Air Self Defence Force F-15s taking part in simulated combat with U.S. Navy F-18 fighters as part of what was characterized by Tokyo as a "major exercise."

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has declared America's era of strategic patience with North Korea over. He has also refused to take possibility of military action off the table.

North Korea has repeatedly rejected calls to curtail its nuclear and missile programs, calling them legitimate self-defense.

Michishita believes North Korea's actions can be viewed as a broad strategy to secure its own future.

"It's not very clear why North Korea has been conducting these missile tests in rapid succession. But one possibility is that it's trying to gain the attention of the United States and to improve their bargaining position in the event of bringing the U.S. to the negotiating table," Michishita said. "If you take a step back and look at the larger picture, the reason for this is that they're trying to establish a deterrence in order to avoid a preventive attack from the United States."

Hiraiwa agreed. "The main objective is to negotiate with the United States by having them accept their present status and build a relationship based on that," he said.

Image: TV screen showing North Korean missile launch

170602-tokyo-1250_3927e4bb0f7e44d7254d2a1fcc67e376.nbcnews-ux-600-700.jpg

A pedestrian looks at a TV screen broadcasting news of a North Korean missile launch while walking down a street in Tokyo, Japan, on Monday. FRANCK ROBICHON / EPA

Even if that is the case, however, the North Korea issue has raised questions about Japan's strictly defensive national security policy which has been in place since the end of the Second World War.

The Japan Times reported that Abe described Pyongyang's growing military capabilities as presenting "a new level of threat" after three other North Korean missiles landed in the Sea of Japan in March.

Hiraiwa says he thinks Abe's choice of words show he believes that "North Korea's threat level is starting to rise faster than the pace of Japan's defense capabilities."

But on the streets of Tokyo, one woman seemed more concerned about how Monday's launch might impact on her looming vacation.

Tsuyuko Tanaka, 69, said she was planning to go on a cruise that would pass through the area where the latest missile landed — which was in international waters but within Japan's exclusive economic zone.

"The best would be to resolve through dialogue, but I worry whether the North Koreans would listen," Tanaka said.

Arata Yamamoto reported from Tokyo. Eoghan Macguire reported from London.

U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 16-Year Low Despite Slower Job Growth - TIME Business

U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 16-Year Low Despite Slower Job Growth

Posted: 02 Jun 2017 06:25 AM PDT

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. employers pulled back on hiring in May by adding only 138,000 jobs. Hiring was still enough to help keep pushing unemployment lower.
The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 4.3 percent from 4.4 percent.
Hiring in the months of April and March were revised downward by a combined 66,000. Job gains have averaged 121,000 over the past three months, a deceleration from an average of 181,000 over the past 12 months.
Average hourly earnings have risen a middling 2.5 percent over the past year.
Restaurants and health care firms posted solid job gains. Food services added 30,300 workers, while health care contributed 24,300 jobs. Construction added 11,000 jobs.

But manufacturers, retailers and governments shed workers last month.
Despite the slowdown in job growth last month, the U.S. economy is running neither too hot nor too cold, with growth holding at a tepid but far from recessionary 2 percent annual rate. Few economists foresee another downturn looming, in part because the recovery from the recession has been steady but grinding, with little sign of the sort of overheated pressures that normally trigger a recession.
The government’s monthly jobs report produces a net gain by estimating how many jobs were created and comparing that figure with how many it estimates were lost. If hiring maintains its current pace, it would exceed population growth, and the unemployment rate should eventually fall even further below its current 4.3 percent, a level associated with a healthy economy.
Still, the jobs report produces several different measures of unemployment. The broadest gauge includes not only the officially unemployed but also part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs and people who want a job but aren’t actively looking for one and so aren’t counted as unemployed.
Known as the “U-6” rate, this measure is one of the favorite metrics for Trump administration officials. The U-6 has declined since January, an encouraging sign that jobless people who had given up hope of working are now being hired. The falling U-6 points to a strengthening economy despite weak growth during the first three months of the year.
But the influx of job seekers can also inflict a drag on pay growth. As more people start seeking jobs, employers begin to have less incentive to raise pay. It’s only when employers face a shallow pool of job applicants that they tend to feel compelled to raise pay in hopes of hiring people who fit their needs.
Annual growth in average hourly earnings has been so-so in recent months. And whatever meaningful pay raises that exist are going disproportionately to managers and supervisors.
Many of the jobs that have been added over the past year are in the generally lower-paying leisure and hospitality industry — hotels, restaurants and amusement parks.
The Trump administration has designated the pace of hiring for good-paying skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing and mining as among the categories it monitors for economic health. Hiring in those three sectors has been comparatively sluggish over the past year.

JKHC FORUM