“Israel has a right and obligation to defend themselves against the threat of Hamas, while abiding by international humanitarian law and protecting civilian lives, and we remain committed to support Israel in its fight against Hamas,” a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said. “We have done so since Oct. 7, and will continue to. There has not been a change in our policy.”

NBC News reported earlier on Sunday that at the direction of the White House, the Pentagon has been reviewing what weaponry Israel has requested that could be used as leverage. The report cited sources and said no final decisions were made.

The report added that the U.S. is considering slowing or pausing the deliveries in hopes that doing so will make the Israelis take actions such as opening humanitarian corridors to provide more aid to Palestinian civilians.

“There has been no request from the White House for DoD (Department of Defense) to slow down weapons deliveries to Israel,” a White House official said when asked about the NBC News report. “And not aware of any request to review weapons to potentially slow walk deliveries either.”

Among the weaponry the U.S. discussed using as leverage, the NBC News report added, were 155 mm artillery rounds and joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs), which are guidance kits that convert dumb bombs into precision-guided munitions.

The heavy death toll from Israel’s war in Gaza has led to much international alarm. President Joe Biden has previously referred to Israeli bombing as “indiscriminate, opens new tab” but Washington has not called for a ceasefire, saying such a measure would benefit Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which governs Gaza.

Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel killed 1,200 people, according to Israeli tallies. Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza has killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, over 1% of the 2.3 million population there, according to Gaza’s health ministry. Many are feared buried in rubble.

Source: Reuters

The post US says its Israel policy unchanged after report on leveraging weapon sales appeared first on Policy Print.

He noted that the events in Gaza revealed the ugly face of the US, suggesting that President Joe Biden can no longer think in a sound and correct manner as he is committing crimes against the people of Gaza and is doing everything in his power to continue the genocide in the enclave.

Al-Houthi stressed, “Force alone cannot achieve anything. The situation today is very different. This is the time of response,” noting that increasing American forces means increasing targets.

Earlier yesterday, the US Central Command announced that three soldiers had been killed and 25 others were injured in a drone attack targeting a base in northeastern Jordan, while the Pentagon called the attack a “dangerous escalation.”

The White House reported that Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, National Security Advisor Sullivan and the Deputy National Security Advisor briefed Biden on the details of the attack against US service members in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border.

The Jordanian government denied that the attack took place in the Kingdom, confirming that the Al-Tanf base in Syria was targeted near the Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi border.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack on the US Al-Tanf base between Syria and Jordan, resulting in the death of three American soldiers and the injury of 25 others.

Source: Middle East Monitor

The post Houthi: Attack on American bases is a clear message of discontent with US policy appeared first on Policy Print.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue an injunction sought by Students for Fair Admissions, the group behind a successful Supreme Court challenge to race-conscious collegiate admissions policies.

That group, founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, had been seeking an injunction pending its appeal of a federal judge’s Jan. 3 ruling rejecting its bid to halt West Point from considering race as an admissions factor.

With time running out before the current application deadline of Jan. 31, Students for Fair Admissions on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to likewise block West Point’s admissions policy while it pursues appeals.

It did so before the 2nd Circuit had ruled. But Blum’s group in a filing on Sunday asked the 2nd Circuit to rule, saying it would withdraw its Supreme Court appeal if the 2nd Circuit ruled in its favor.

West Point is a prestigious military service academy in New York state that educates cadets for commissioning into the U.S. Army. The U.S. Justice Department in court filings has said that West Point is a “vital pipeline to the officer corps” and that its race-conscious admissions practices help the Army achieve its “mission critical” goal of having officers as diverse as its enlisted military personnel.

Blum declined to comment on Monday, citing the pending Supreme Court appeal. President Joe Biden’s administration has until Tuesday to respond to the group’s Supreme Court appeal.

Blum’s group sued West Point in September with the goal of ending what was essentially an exemption for military academies included in the Supreme Court’s ruling on college admissions in June 2023 that allowed these institutions to continue to consider race in admissions.

In the ruling powered by its 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court rejected policies long used by American colleges and universities to increase the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students on American campuses.

In invalidating admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court did not address race in admissions at military academies, which Chief Justice John Roberts in a footnote said had “potentially distinct interests.”

Blum’s group accused West Point of using admissions practices that discriminated against white applicants and violated the principle of equal protection in the U.S. Constitution.

The Biden administration has argued that senior military leaders long have recognized that a scarcity of minority officers can create distrust within the armed forces.

Although Black people make up 20.2% of the Army’s active duty enlisted personnel, only 11% of officers are Black, the Justice Department said. Hispanic people constitute 18% of active personnel but only 9% of officers, it added. White people constitute 51.7% of the Army active duty enlisted corps and 68% of its officers, the Justice Department said.

Source: US News

The post US Appeals Court Won’t Block West Point’s Race-Conscious Admissions Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Varga emphasized that fiscal expenditures will be restrained until the inflation rate returns to a “more moderate range.” While there is a consensus that this year’s inflation rate will be significantly lower than last year, he hailed the achievement of reducing inflation from 25.7 percent in January to 5.5 percent in December. He anticipates an even better figure for January of the current year, with monetary policy playing a pivotal role in this success.

The highest annual rate was recorded in Czechia.

Acknowledging the challenges ahead, the minister highlighted the need to reduce the public deficit from around six percent to below three percent this year. He cautioned against achieving this goal hastily, as it could result in a growth sacrifice and increased unemployment. Although there is government discussion about extending the deficit reduction timeline to two years instead of one, a final decision has not been reached.

Mr. Varga believes a deficit of 4-4.5 percent is more realistic for the current year, with market expectations aligning with this assessment.

Addressing public debt, he pointed out notable improvements since 2010. The proportion of public debt in foreign currency has decreased from 53 percent to 26 percent, the average maturity has increased to six years, and public involvement has risen significantly, with the Hungarian population now holding 21 percent of the public debt.

Despite the external pressures, the government’s primary objective for the year remains deficit reduction and lowering the public debt.Continue reading

Concerning the tax system, the minister asserted that Hungary maintains its status as the most competitive country in the region for foreign working capital investment per capita. The government aims to uphold this position while keeping the personal income tax rate in the single digits. He defended the current 15 percent rate as the third lowest tax burden in Europe, with potential reductions through family discounts.

Responding to a question, he clarified that adopting the euro is not an objective but a tool. He cited Slovakia as an example where the introduction of the euro did not necessarily lead to economic success.

The Ministry of Finance quoted Mr. Varga as announcing the arrival of HUF 520 billion (EUR 1.3B) in previously blocked EU funds in Hungary since December last year. However, he emphasized that the economy has continued to function effectively even without these funds. The budget has provided ample resources to sustain family benefits, protect public utility bills, and preserve pension values.

In 2024, the government anticipates receiving over HUF 2,500 billion (EUR 6.4B) in EU funds.

Source: Hungary Today

The post Minister of Finance: “Disciplined fiscal policy must be continued in 2024” appeared first on Policy Print.

Assessing tail risks to the euro area economy

In Chavleishvili, Kremer and Lund-Thomsen (2023), we develop a novel approach to gauge the potential short- to medium-term costs and benefits of alternative policy actions when monetary policy faces trade-offs between financial and macroeconomic stability. The structural quantile vector autoregressive (QVAR) model – introduced by Chavleishvili and Manganelli (2023) – provides a flexible way of estimating the dynamic interactions between our main variables of interest: real GDP growth, inflation, short-term interest rates and financial stability conditions.^[2] The “flexible” attribute refers to the fact that the estimated interactions can be weaker or stronger in the centre and in the tails of the “joint probability distributions” of the model variables. Financial stability conditions are captured by two summary indicators measuring financial imbalances and system-wide financial stress, respectively. Using quantile regression allows us to uncover non-linearities in the dynamics of the model variables like in the seminal “growth-at-risk” paper by Adrian et al. (2019), which documents a much stronger impact of financial distress on the left tail of the growth distribution. By considering the entire probability distribution of our variables of interest, we can evaluate policy options not just in terms of their most likely outcomes, but also in terms of the tail risks associated with particularly undesirable states such as systemic crises. The quantification of tail risks thus lends itself to a risk management perspective on financial stability considerations in monetary policy (see Kilian and Manganelli, 2008), a perspective that focuses on the balance of upside and downside risks to inflation and economic activity rather than on the mean forecasts of both variables.

To operationalise financial stability, our model includes two measures widely used in ECB analysis. The first one is the Systemic Risk Indicator (SRI), which measures the financial cycle and, by extension, system-wide financial imbalances (see Lang et al., 2019). The second is the Composite Indicator of Systemic Stress (CISS), which quantifies systemic stress in the financial system (see Holló et al., 2012, and Chavleishvili and Kremer, 2023). Conceptually, one may think of the former as systemic risk ex ante, i.e. the risk of a future financial crisis, and of the latter as systemic risk ex post, i.e. materialised systemic risk. A typical financial boom-bust cycle would then see an elevated level of the SRI followed by a steep rise in the CISS as the bubble bursts and the system deleverages, with the Great Financial Crisis being a prominent example. The risk of such a boom-bust pattern poses an intertemporal financial stability trade-off for monetary policy: it can try to curb the financial boom by keeping interest rates higher than they would otherwise be, at the cost of weaker economic growth over the short run and at the benefit of a financial crisis being less likely and less severe over the medium term. In this article, however, we focus on another: the intratemporal financial stability trade-off for monetary policy, in which monetary policy itself may trigger more immediate financial instability.

The intratemporal financial stability trade-off in 2022

The circumstances prevailing in 2022 in the euro area and in many other places in the world, marked a stark turning point in the monetary policy stance. At the time, surging inflation called for a sharp tightening of monetary policy, even though economic growth was slowing after the post-pandemic rebound and financial stress was increasing on the back of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. In addition, the financial system at the time was vulnerable to a policy reversal because after a decade of accommodative monetary policy, the yield curve was flat and risk premia were at historically low levels, implying elevated risks to the profitability of banks and other financial intermediaries from a sharp rise in short-term interest rates.

To quantify the intratemporal financial stability trade-off in the euro area, we forecast the full distribution of our model variables over a period of four years, starting with the fourth quarter of 2022 (Q4 2022). In the baseline scenario, we fix the path of interest rates to the expected short-term market rates from the September 2022 Survey of Monetary Analysts (SMA) conducted by the ECB. In the baseline, we also require the mean forecast of real GDP growth, HICP inflation and commodity prices between Q4 2022 and Q4 2024 to reflect the ECB’s publicly available macroeconomic projections. This approach allows us to replicate the context in which policymakers were deciding on the path forward at the time while still considering macro-financial tail risks.

In addition to the baseline scenario, we also consider two alternative policy scenarios with different paths of short-term interest rates. The first one is “front-loading”, whereby policy rates are hiked more quickly. This helps prevent inflation from becoming entrenched, but it can also hurt systemically relevant banks and other financial intermediaries that have become particularly vulnerable to interest rate risk. The March 2023 banking turmoil in the United States and elsewhere provides a clear example of how monetary tightening may induce, or expose, financial fragility (see, e.g., Jiang et al., 2023, and Acharya et al., 2023). The second scenario considers a gradual monetary tightening. This may alleviate strains on financial stability, but at the cost of making high inflation more persistent, thereby creating the risk of long-term inflation expectations becoming de-anchored from the ECB’s 2% target. All three interest rate paths are illustrated in Chart 1.

Chart 1

Counterfactual paths for short-term interest rates in the euro area

Chart 2 plots the projected paths of the mean as well as the 10^th and 90^th percentiles of the forecast density of real GDP growth and the CISS using the three interest rate paths above. As previously noted, in the case of real GDP growth, the dotted line is restricted to meet the ECB’s growth projections at the time. The 10^th and the 90^th conditional percentiles represent the downside and the upside tail risks around these mean projections, respectively.^[3] Looking at the chart, we see that downside risks to real GDP growth (blue lines, left chart), as well as upside risks to systemic stress (red lines, right chart) are amplified by the interest rate front-loading in the short term compared to the baseline, and that the effects are larger compared to the respective opposite tails. Tightening monetary policy above market expectations increases the probability of realising a high level of systemic stress, in turn feeding into downside risks to growth. In contrast, a more gradual tightening has the opposite effects.

Chart 2

Forecast distributions of euro area real GDP (left) growth and the CISS (right) in the three policy scenarios

Overall, when comparing the short- to medium-term costs and benefits of the scenarios vis-à-vis the baseline forecast, the results generally do not support a more aggressive tightening path than what was expected by market participants in the autumn of 2022. The elevated downside risks to growth may outweigh the only modest gains in lower predicted inflation. That said, a policymaker who is particularly concerned about inflation expectations becoming de-anchored from target inflation may still be inclined to favour tighter policy. On the other hand, if policymakers were more concerned about the risk of causing severe financial distress by front-loading policy, the scenario could be modified to resemble, for example, the so-called “taper tantrum”, an episode of severe financial stress that occurred in 2013 when the Federal Reserve hinted at tapering its bond-buying programme.

Another consideration is that we have modelled monetary policy rather simplistically, with short-term rates being the only instrument. Today, monetary policymakers have several tools available, some of which can be used to separately target price and financial stability concerns, potentially mitigating the intratemporal financial stability trade-off. Still, a policymaker may prefer to avoid sparking financial stress to begin with, even if it can be contained with the right combination of tools.

Monetary policy from a risk manager’s perspective

In this article, we sketched a novel empirical approach to quantify the macroeconomic costs and benefits of monetary policies which take financial stability considerations explicitly into account. The approach has the distinct advantage that financial stability considerations are not introduced ad hoc or as pure “side effects” of monetary policy. In contrast, financial stability trade-offs enter the policy calculus through their direct effects on future inflation and economic activity. Our approach allows monetary policymakers to adopt a risk management perspective when confronted with elevated macroeconomic tails risks associated with certain risks to financial stability.

Source: ECB Europa

The post Quantifying financial stability risks for monetary policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Indonesia’s Presidential Election (PE) 2024 is just around the corner. On Valentine’s Day, the first round of voting will take place. A second round – which will happen if no candidate pair wins at least 50 per cent of the national vote plus one and at least 20 per cent in half of Indonesia’s 38 provinces – will be on 26 June.

From a national development perspective, the three pairs: Anies Baswedan and Muhaimin Iskandar (Team AMIN), Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka, and Ganjar Pranowo and Mahfud MD, each have their ways to shape the future of Indonesia. What would the policy possibilities post-PE2024 look like? What are the potential impacts on Indonesia’s development trajectory?

As policy (content) cannot be separated from politics (process) and polity (culture), it is important to start answering the question by examining what the presidential nominees’ campaigns reveal about the state of the Indonesian political elite.

In terms of coalition building, there have been shifting alliances and power dynamics among the elite. The coalition that supported President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) in his 2014 and 2019 campaigns has now split. Most have gone to Prabowo-Gibran, who have a more populist agenda, some to Ganjar-Mahfud, seen as representing the nationalists, and the remainder to Team AMIN, who claim to be reformist. Thus, their campaign narratives: Team AMIN offer “change”, Prabowo-Gibran “continuity”, and Ganjar-Mahfud “improvement”. These keywords also capture their main policy approaches for key issues in development.

Despite their promise to bring about significant change, Team AMIN surprisingly set quite a conservative target of annual economic growth between 5.5 to 6.5 per cent until 2029. They aim to reach it through shared prosperity, wealth distribution, and social justice. Prabowo-Gibran’s target is 6-7 per cent with a vague, jargonistic strategy: “Jokowinomics”, interpreted as a version of a “Pancasila economy”. This is basically a system with a controlled market economy as a counterbalance against neoclassical economic tenets like individualism and free markets. Ganjar-Mahfud has set an ambitious 7 per cent growth target with a “we have all” (semua ada di kita) strategy.

From the three teams’ vision and mission documents and campaigns, there are a few similarities in their policy platforms. On promoting growth, all candidates aim to accelerate it to improve living standards and reduce poverty. On enhancing industrial development, all candidates recognise the importance of strengthening the country’s industrial base to reduce reliance on imports and strengthen export competitiveness. Last, they all agree to improve physical infrastructure to support economic activity and facilitate trade and investment.

However, the teams differ in the following ways. First, on the role of government, Team AMIN advocate limited government and greater reliance on private sector initiatives. This is likely due to the influence of their campaign advisor, former finance minister Tom Lembong, who also headed Indonesia’s national investment agency. This is in contrast to Prabowo-Gibran, who favour a more active state role in directing economic policy despite big businesses’ support. Ganjar-Mahfud takes the middle ground: in their platform, the government is the regulator and facilitator in guiding development, not an active player.

Second, on trade and liberalisation, Prabowo-Gibran’s focus on protectionism contrasts with Team AMIN’s emphasis on liberalisation and market-based solutions. Again, taking the middle stance, Ganjar-Mahfud seeks to balance the protection of domestic industries with fostering foreign direct investment-based innovation.

On social equity and environmental sustainability, Team AMIN and Ganjar-Mahfud emphasise tackling social inequality and environmental concerns, while Prabowo-Gibran’s primary focus is on growth and national self-sufficiency.

Many investors are waiting to see if Jokowi’s signature policies – including downstreaming, the proposed shift of Indonesia’s capital to Nusantara (IKN), East Kalimantan, and infrastructural development – will continue.

The answer is clearly yes. The signature policies can be grouped into three broad types, the first of which is infrastructure, particularly for connectivity, like ports, roads, and industrial complexes. All the candidates recognise that infrastructural development is crucial and have pledged to continue upholding this policy.

Second, Jokowi has emphasised social protection, particularly social assistance. All candidates understand that this is a populist vote-winner that they must continue, even if they differ on how it is delivered. Third, all candidates will continue downstreaming (hilirisasi) as they know how important it is for Indonesia to move up the value chain. This is not limited to the mining/extractive sectors but extends to agriculture, fisheries, and even digital downstreaming. Team AMIN and Ganjar-Mahfud have declared that they will not stop at this but work towards “re-industrialisation”.

On the planned relocation of the new capital city, Prabowo-Gibran and Ganjar-Mahfud will continue this part of Jokowi’s legacy. The former pair strongly support IKN. Echoing Jokowi’s rhetoric and notwithstanding criticism from academia and civil society, Prabowo-Gibran emphasise the need to develop areas outside Java and has pledged to uphold sustainability and environmental responsibility in the IKN’s execution.

Ganjar-Mahfud has stated that they will study the project further, expressing concern about its potential impact on the local environment and livelihoods of affected communities. In their campaign, they have offered “corrective measures” for what might have been neglected in the developmental process so far, like considering the impact on indigenous groups and the mitigation of environmental problems.

Whoever wins, what is clear is that Indonesia must be prepared to fulfil different, creative development policy priorities to meet its challenges.

Team AMIN are the most critical; they omitted discussion of the IKN in their vision and mission document. They question its feasibility and high cost, arguing that the government should focus on addressing other issues such as poverty and inequality. In the less likely scenario (given Prabowo-Gibran’s high poll ratings) that they will win PE2024, Team AMIN is unlikely to stop the project outright, even though there is growing resistance to the shift to Nusantara from the public and civil servants. At most, the relocation can be delayed, as the IKN’s status is already enshrined in a national law.

The new president and his administration will determine Indonesia’s development trajectory for the next five or ten years. Whether and to what extent the next administration can realise the vision for Indonesia’s “Golden 2045” (Indonesia Emas) centennial remains open to scrutiny.

Whoever wins, what is clear is that Indonesia must be prepared to fulfil different, creative development policy priorities to meet its challenges. All things considered, the PE2024 candidates’ proposed policies are not far-reaching enough to address the multifaceted challenges awaiting Indonesia, especially as it has aspirations to reach advanced development. Excellent technocratic capacity and strong political support must sustain and surpass what President Jokowi has achieved.

Source: Fulcrum

The post Policy Possibilities after Indonesia’s Presidential Election 2024 appeared first on Policy Print.

The European Commission published its proposal for an EU raw materials initiative (Critical Raw Materials Act, CRMA) in March 2023. The proposal contains plans to open new mines in Europe and to utilize minerals found in the waste materials of closed mines. Permitting procedures for new mines are additionally proposed to be shortened, and mining companies will be required to report their environmental footprints to the EU. The European Parliament approved the Act last September. To scrutinize the proposed Act, along with its implications to mining practices and our planetary boundaries, we held a seminar series with invited experts during autumn 2023.

The seminar series revolved around crucial questions that are expected to fundamentally shape our future: do we have enough minerals in the world for a green transition? What will be the environmental impact of increasing the number of mines? Is circular economy the solution, or should we reduce our consumption?

Europe depends on imported critical raw materials for its green transition

The autumn seminars were kicked off with a thoroughly informative presentation by Henna Virkkunen, Member of The European Parliament (MEP), working on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). MEP Virkkunen laid out the facts: the EU is currently dependent on China when it comes to critical raw materials. While Europeans consume around 20% of the world’s critical raw materials, only approximately 2% are produced in Europe. The proposed Act supports the plan to shift this balance towards a more self-sufficient and supply-secure future. The audience raised concerns about environmental safety and environmental degradation due to the increasing volume of mining, especially considering the simplified permitting process for critical raw material projects.

Tackling biodiversity loss while increasing mining is a conundrum

Transitioning from a fossil fuel-based economy is argued to be dependent on mining more (critical) raw materials. But how to do it sustainably with minimal environmental damage, and how well are natural values considered in the short and long term when decisions are made regarding new mines? The Chairman of the Finnish Nature Panel Professor Janne Kotiaho, from the University of Jyväskylä, and environmental activist Riikka Karppinen from Sodankylä further reflected on these questions.

Professor Kotiaho’s message was grimly realistic: biodiversity loss continues at an accelerated rate in both Europe and Finland, and we are all responsible for it. He argued that at the current state of affairs, to truly halt biodiversity and nature loss, we need to implement restorative, nature-positive solutions instead of solutions based on the principle of no net loss. Karppinen expressed shock and discontent regarding the aims to facilitate the opening of new mines in currently protected areas in the name of a green transition. Karppinen has frequently spoken out against a global mining company that is planning on opening a new nickel mine near her home in an area protected by Finnish law and the EU Natura framework. During her presentation, she kindly shared her experiences regarding the residents’ struggles.

The critical raw materials are not renewable

The green transition’s burden on the natural environment may indeed be enormous. But do we have enough materials to fully shift to renewables, or are we about to reach the limits of the planet’s boundaries? Research Professor Simon Michaux, from the Finnish Geological Survey, provided astounding figures on the amounts of minerals actually required for the green transition. According to his estimates, at current energy use rates, we simply do not have enough minerals in the world to fully shift to renewables, and in fact, minerals are “the new oil”. Professor Michaux’s presentation left us thinking: if we do not have enough materials in the world to substitute fossil fuels with renewables, are our current consumption patterns simply doomed?

To better understand how the new Critical Raw Materials Act may look like in Finland, we listened to a presentation by Jarkko Vesa, Special Advisor at the Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. He provided a thorough overview on how the implementation process began. As the Director of Sustainable Development of the mining company Terrafame, Veli-Matti Hilla further underscored: it is clear that mining has received a substantial boost from the EU institutes.

A mix of solutions is needed for a sustainable future

Director Lasse Miettinen from Sitra gave the closing presentation to our seminar series, and it ended on a rather optimistic note. He argued – in line with most of our presenters, along with our own concerns – that we are currently exceeding the limits of our planet. To imagine a more sustainable future, we need to learn to think about ecosystems in a more nuanced and interconnected way. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and natural resource depletion cannot be solved separately. Both biotic and abiotic resources are part of nature and managing them should be reframed accordingly. Director Miettinen argued that transitioning to a circular economy is a crucial part and precondition of the solution to our multiple crises. To reduce supply risks and ensure positive environmental outcomes, we need circular solutions, diversified supplies, and more local production beside aiming for sustainable lifestyles and biodiversity offsets. He encouraged us to think that building a more sustainable future is indeed possible.

Professor of Practice in Environmental Responsibility and Chair of the seminar series, Hannele Pokka further noted that while observing how mining in Finland has developed over the years, ordinary people tend to support mining but under no circumstances do they want a mine near their homes. Finland is an old mining country, and minerals have been extracted from the land for hundreds of years. Public opinion in Finland has taken a more critical stance on mining in recent years, which has been reinforced by the Talvivaara mine environmental disaster. It has been difficult for new mining projects to gain social acceptance, and several mining projects, especially in Northern Finland are pending. If mining companies want to seek approval for their projects, mining should be reformed to incorporate a more comprehensive notion of sustainability, including new approaches and technological solutions in water management.

The seminar series, above all, taught us that what used to be possible in mining is not so any longer, and we need drastic changes to remain within our planetary boundaries.

Seminar recordings and further reading materials are available via the links embedded in the text.

Source: Mirage News

The post Probing EU Mineral Policy: Can Mining Become Sustainable? appeared first on Policy Print.

Deanne Millison, Elizabeth “Liz” Kosobucki and Alec Rogers are joining Ford’s public policy and government affairs team. 

Millison joins as a senior director and was most recently chief economic adviser to Vice President Harris. She previously served as deputy chief of staff and legislative director to then-Sen. Harris and as director for the city of Chicago under former Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Kosobucki, the former director for Europe in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office of Europe and the Middle East, will be the director for trade policy strategy. Rogers, who served as the legislative director for former Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) and as Republican counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, joins Ford as director of government affairs, tax and finance policy.

Alice Lugo, the former assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will join the government relations practice at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck as senior counsel. Before her time at DHS, Lugo worked on Capitol Hill as chief counsel and senior immigration adviser to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and as counsel to former Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.)

Invariant added Melanie Harris as a senior director, where she will focus on artificial intelligence and technology policy. Harris was the United Kingdom digital policy lead for Amazon Web Services in London. She also worked on military modernization as a professional staff member for the House Armed Services Committee and served as a special assistant to the secretary of Defense and in the National Security Division of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Andrew Mueller is now vice president of government relations at Crowley. Mueller was most recently the senior director of policy and international development for General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems and served as an officer in the U.S. Navy for more than two decades.

John Jacobs joins the Alliance for Automotive Innovation as vice president of industry engagement and partnerships. He was most recently the nonprofit and association industry leader at Hartman Executive Advisors, and he was vice president of marketing, membership and business development at the Telecommunications Industry Association.

Source : The Hill

The post Lobbying World: Ford Fuels Policy Team With Addition of Executive Branch, Capitol Hill Veterans appeared first on Policy Print.

The Colorado Republican, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, has attracted controversy. She has alienated fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill and back home. And her reelection prospects are dimming.

President Joe Biden is targeting Boebert. He’ll travel to her district Wednesday to highlight CS Wind, a renewable energy manufacturing company in Pueblo.

Still, Boebert says she’s making a concerted effort to advance policy important to her district.

“Obviously, a lot of people see me as a fighter — I had to fight to get here,” she said in an interview. “But I do believe I have arrived to a position where I am taken seriously in this country as an effective legislator. And I’m very proud of that.”

Such talk might raise eyebrows, especially from someone whose brand has mostly revolved around media appearances, strong fealty to former President Donald Trump and calling those engaged in Covid-19 vaccination outreach “Needle Nazis.”

Infamously, she and a date were kicked out of a Denver theater in September for vaping and groping. Boebert has since apologized.

Boebert campaigned on water issues in her 2020 bid for the House and moved to act on her promises, but her early flirtation with QAnon conspiracy theorists — which she has since disavowed — and actions like calling Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) part of a “Jihad Squad” repeatedly overshadowed her work.

Now some fellow lawmakers and advocates are giving her at least some credit for digging in on policy.

“She’s a serious legislator,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who sits with her on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Even some Democrats are offering grudging respect and have noticed a shift, though with caveats.

“I’m not ready to pronounce her a serious legislator,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. “But I will say that I appreciate the fact that there’s been a noticeable reduction in the performative antics.”

A review of Boebert’s policy efforts shows she’s getting traction on several fronts.

She has secured amendments to freeze a Biden administration overhaul of oil and gas regulations on federal lands and remove endangered species protections for gray wolves.

Boebert has also secured funding for important district projects like water treatment facilities and irrigation projects. Those would-be successes have yet to be enshrined into federal law.

Some Democrats have noticed her willingness to work with them on certain issues.

“We might disagree on some things,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), who is working with Boebert on a bill — H.R. 8601 and S. 636 — to extend conservation protections in her district.

“But she hasn’t been obnoxious to work with in any way. … Obviously, she’s got a different take on energy than I do. But that’s whether you got spots or stripes,” he added.

The 36-year-old grandmother and former oil pipeline inspector faces a brutal reelection bid, after winning last cycle by just 546 votes.

Democrat Adam Frisch, her 2022 opponent, wasted little time announcing he would seek a rematch.

Before taking on the Democrats, Boebert has to vanquish a competitor from within her own party, Grand Junction-based attorney Jeff Hurd.

Even though he agrees with some of Boebert’s policy positions — on addressing gray wolves, and permitting and regulatory reforms — he said the district deserves a “serious and credible and hardworking” candidate.

Boebert has waved off concerns about her tight race to represent Colorado’s 3rd District, even if she noted the busy congressional calendar has kept her in Washington longer than she’d prefer.

“I like to think I spoiled my constituents being in the district so much last Congress,” she said. “I certainly go home on the weekends and try to visit them as much as possible, but you know … the appearances aren’t going to be as frequent as they were in the first Congress just ’cause there is so much to do on the East Coast.”

Her campaign put a finer point on it.

“Congresswoman Boebert has passed more pieces of legislation out of House committees this year than anyone in Colorado’s House delegation,” campaign manager Drew Sexton said in an email.

“When this election takes place, Colorado’s 3rd District voters will clearly understand she has led the way to securing tens of millions of dollars for water, infrastructure and economic development projects for their communities.”

‘Trying to moderate myself’

Boebert showed up to Congress flaunting her gun and running her mouth, but some Democrats now say she’s figuring out how to holster both those weapons.

Huffman acknowledged that he’s “locked horns” with Boebert on Natural Resources, notably over her gun advocacy and wanting to be armed on Capitol Hill. During an interview this summer, Huffman said he has noticed a change in attitude.

“Hey Lauren!” Huffman yelled over to her. “I just got asked if you have reached out to any Democrats about any bipartisan legislation. Is there anything you would like me to work with you on?”

Boebert had a ready-made list.

“I would like you to help me with my ‘CONVEY Act’ and my Dolores River bill,” she told him, referring to measures that would transfer 31 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to a local county for economic development and the bipartisan conservation effort, respectively.

“These are all natural resources, and I’m currently working on revamping my forestry legislation. And I’m trying to moderate myself with that a little bit so we can get some agreement on it.”

She also has a water bill that would protect the sucker fish.

“It’s Endangered Species Act, you love that,” she told him. “Those are all my top priorities, and I would love to work with you on those.”

As she walked away, Huffman said, “So yeah, you can certainly notice the effort.”

Still, he said, she continues to introduce bills that are “wildly controversial and just terrible policy, and probably terrible politics, too.”

He pointed to her “Trust the Science Act,” H.R. 764, which would require the Interior Department to remove protected status for the gray wolf.

“We had a recent election of both her and the wolf in Colorado,” he said, referring to the state’s 2020 vote on Proposition 114 to reintroduce the gray wolf, which passed by a margin of just 57,000 votes out of more than 3.1 million cast statewide. “The wolf’s more popular. So I question some of the battles she picks.”

‘A serious legislator’

In the recent debate over the fiscal 2024 Interior-Environment spending bill, Boebert succeeded in adding eight amendments to the bill.

Her wins focused on a host of issues popular in her rural district.

Among those was a proposal to shift $5 million from EPA to hazardous fuels reduction in national forest lands, as well as language to halt the BLM’s proposed Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process rule.

Boebert also had some red meat for her conservative base. She floated a proposal to slash the salary of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Liz Klein to $1, calling her a “radical, partisan extremist.” It failed overwhelmingly.

“She’s doing what’s right for her constituents,” said fellow Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, who co-sponsored the gray wolf legislation with Boebert. “She’s doing what’s right for the environment. She’s doing what’s right for wildlife management. She’s principled.”

Another Republican who sits with Boebert on Natural Resources offered high praise.

“I think she’s actually very smart,” said Luna, the Florida Republican. “And she’s been very effective. Oil and gas is a major component of her district so she’s advocating [for her constituents].”

Luna pointed to Boebert scoring six amendments in the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs spending bill.

“That was incredible. She’s a serious legislator. I know the media tries to paint her as not, but she is,” Luna said.

‘Not just all throwing grenades’

Within her district, Boebert has also won praise for her active support of the “Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act,” H.R. 1534.

The bipartisan effort, backed by both of the state’s Democratic senators, would include 52,000 acres of BLM lands and 15,000 acres of Forest Service lands across three counties in the southwest corner of the state.

Those lands would be managed “to conserve, protect, and enhance the native fish, whitewater boating, recreational, scenic, cultural, archaeological, natural, geological, historical, ecological, watershed, wildlife, educational, and scientific resources.”

The proposal is the result of more than two decades of negotiations among local residents and stakeholders to protect the region while avoiding a more restrictive Wild and Scenic River designation.

“The counties have been working on that for a lot of years, so by the time she got elected it was a little late to be a driving force, but she’s definitely been a contributing force,” said Shak Powers, who works for the nonprofit Region 9 Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado, which serves local communities and the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribes.

Powers, who previously worked as Montezuma County’s administrator, which is not an elected position, praised Boebert’s attention to the district, both in terms of constituent services and her legislative efforts.

“She has been very attentive,” Powers said, pointing to Boebert’s work on the Dolores River as well as on drought mitigation projects.

Boebert has been an advocate for both state and federal funds — supporting local grant applications and pursuing a U.S. Forest Service pilot program — for removing invasive species like Russian olives and tamarisk, or salt cedars.

He also credits Boebert for her attention to increasing broadband access in the region, pointing to ongoing efforts by her office to pursue unallocated Federal Communications Commission funds designated for that purpose.

“I think she’s got a lot of political opposition that would just as soon highlight her being far-right and not give her credit for any of the things she does well,” Powers said.

He added: “It’s not just all throwing grenades across the aisle in Congress; she’s doing what she can for the 3rd District.”

Earlier this year, Boebert also began embracing earmarks — funding for specific projects in a district, which was revived by Congress in 2021.

She submitted 10 requestsfor more than $34 million in funds for her sprawling district. She did not request any funding in fiscal 2023.

The projects would bolster reservoirs, address drinking water quality, and build new roads and a bridge. The congressional stalemate on spending, however, could endanger those efforts.

A matter of style?

A sprinkle of bipartisanship may not be enough to secure Boebert’s return for the 119th Congress.

Despite her seat’s Republican advantage — the Cook Political Report gives the GOP a 7-point edge in the district, which spans the entire Western Slope and most of the state’s southern border — observers also see the seat as one of the most competitive of the 2024 cycle. Cook rates the race a toss-up.

That’s in part due to Boebert’s narrow victory in 2022 to Frisch. The former Aspen City Council member has been talking up his prospects in 2024, telling the Guardian last month that people are “sick and tired” of the “circus.” His campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

As for the primary challenge, Hurd in October rolled out a major endorsement from former Gov. Bill Owens, the last Republican to lead the state, as well as nabbing the backing of key officials from Delta and Mesa counties.

In an interview, Hurd acknowledged that Boebert has targeted some important issues for the district — including delisting the gray wolf to allow ranchers to protect their livestock — but asserted that she has failed to pursue economic policies that would benefit the rural district.

“We’ve been suffering because of our incumbent’s inability to advance that kind of legislation in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Hurd said. “I think it’s critical that we have somebody that is principled, but also pragmatic and who recognizes the need to work across the aisle to advance economic issues.”

Hurd noted that even on issues that should be a win for the district, Boebert’s bid for attention stands to derail progress.

He pointed to Boebert’s name for the gray wolf legislation, the “Trust the Science Act,” suggesting that the title could be off-putting to would-be co-sponsors.

“I agree with the policy goal, I think it’s critical that we delist the gray wolf,” Hurd said. “But we need to make sure that if we actually want to get this passed into law, that we can do it in a way that will encourage getting as much support as we can, including from folks on the other side of the political aisle.”

Hurd, who has represented electric cooperatives in his work with the law firm Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, added: “I think I would stylistically approach this in a different way.”

Boebert herself expressed little concern that her theatrics could undermine her efforts, even after she introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden, claiming he failed to uphold immigration laws. The effort fizzled on the House floor and angered many Republicans.

Her campaign was unfazed by political attacks of any kind.

“As expected, Congresswoman Boebert’s opponents are flat-out misrepresenting her strong legislative accomplishments,” Sexton said.

Moreover, Boebert said that gender may play a role in how she’s perceived. “I think women do have to prove themselves a little more to be taken seriously,” she said.

Ultimately, she said she’s unconcerned about the year ahead and will continue to fight.

“Democrats are going to try everything they can to buy this seat,” she said. “I am not worried about that.”

Source : E&E News

The post Boebert Leans Into Environment Policy in Bid to Win Over Critics appeared first on Policy Print.

WASHINGTON — Most of the candidates in this year’s 2024 Republican race for the presidential nomination mirror hard-line immigration policies set by the front-runner, former President Donald Trump.

What were once considered far-right policies are now common talking points among the GOP candidates. That includes support for building a wall along the Southern U.S.-Mexico border and ending birthright citizenship for American-born children of undocumented immigrants — a protection that is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Candidates also have argued for the reinstatement of Title 42, a pandemic-era immigration policy that immediately expelled migrants and barred them from claiming asylum. The policy was ended by the Biden administration earlier this year, but GOP candidates have argued that it should be revived because of the high number of migrants claiming asylum.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seen an increase in encounters with migrants at the U.S. Southern border, according to its data. In fiscal year 2022, there were nearly 2.4 million encounters with migrants, and in fiscal year 2023, which ended on Oct. 1, there were nearly 2.5 million encounters with migrants at the Southern border.

GOP candidates calling for increased border security have also pointed to the opioid crisis and illicit fentanyl that is smuggled into the U.S. More than  150 people die each day from overdoses related to fentanyl, a topic in the most recent GOP presidential debate.

Most fentanyl — about 90% — is seized by border officials at ports of entry, and more than 70% of people smuggling those drugs are U.S. citizens, according to James Mandryck, a CBP official.

Here’s where the Republican presidential candidates stand on U.S. immigration policy:

Former President Donald J. Trump

Trump’s current policies build from his first term, such as expanding the “Muslim travel ban,” which was an executive order he signed in 2017 that banned travel to seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Courts granted immigration attorneys who sued a nationwide temporary injunction on the ban, but in 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the third version of the executive order, which included barring travelers from Venezuela and North Korea. President Joe Biden rescinded the travel ban.

At an October campaign rally in Iowa, Trump said he would expand that Muslim ban to also include an “ideological screening” of immigrants coming into the U.S. and will ban anyone who is a “communist, Marxist or fascist” who is sympathetic to “radical Islamic terrorists” and people who do not “like our religion.”

The U.S. does not have a state religion and was founded on the principles of religious freedom.

At a late November campaign rally in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump stated he would undertake mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. There are roughly 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. Trump has also said he wants to place those immigrants in camps as they await deportation.

Trump has pledged to reinstate the “remain in Mexico” policy from his administration and send U.S. military to the Southern border.

The “remain in Mexico” policy forced asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their applications were being processed, which many immigration advocates criticized because it put those asylum seekers in harm. The Biden administration tried to get rid of the policy, but federal courts kept it in place until the Supreme Court ruled that the White House had the authority to end it.

Trump would also end a policy used by U.S. enforcement agencies that allows migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in court to live in the U.S., rather than be held at a detention facility.

Trump in addition has said during the campaign that he would end birthright citizenship through an executive order. Trump made the same promise while he was in office, but never acted on it.

Trump’s immigration policies during his first term were met with outcry from Democrats and advocates. They also opposed his attempts to end an Obama administration program that protects undocumented children brought into the country, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Federal courts halted the ending of DACA.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

DeSantis has said he supports policies similar to Trump’s, such as wanting to end birthright citizenship, reestablish the remain in Mexico policy and send U.S. military to the border.

During a trip to the border in the summer, DeSantis also backed mass deportations, allowing for the use of deadly force against suspected drug traffickers at the border and the indefinite detention of migrant youth — a violation of the Flores agreement that says undocumented youth cannot be detained for more than 20 days.

In that speech in Eagle Pass, Texas, DeSantis compared the border to a home invasion.

“If someone was breaking into your house, you would repel them with the use of force, right?” he said. “But yet if they have drugs, these backpacks, and they’re going in, and they’re cutting through an enforced structure, we’re just supposed to let ’em in? You know, I say use force to repel them. If you do that one time, they will never do that again.”

DeSantis also wants to continue building the border wall and use funds to do so by taxing money that migrants send home to Mexico.

In the third GOP presidential debate, DeSantis reiterated he would handle the U.S.–Mexico border by sending the military there and would authorize the use of deadly force for anyone crossing the border without authorization.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley

Haley said she would handle the border by ending trade relations with China, because the chemicals used to make fentanyl are shipped from China and made in Mexico by cartels. She would add 20,000 more border patrol and ICE agents and pull federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with the federal government over immigration enforcement.

States that have sanctuary cities and counties include California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont and Washington.

Also like Trump, Haley said she would end a U.S. policy that allows migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in court to live in the U.S. rather than be held at a detention facility. Immigration courts currently have a more than 2-million-case backlog. 

During the third GOP presidential debate, Haley took a swipe at the Biden administration’s move to reinstate Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for nearly 500,000 Venezuelans, allowing them to live and work in the United States.

“It’s just going to have more of them come,” she said of Venezuelans, and instead advocated for placing sanctions on Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy 

Ramaswamy, who is one of the few candidates with no government experience, does not have an immigration platform on his campaign site, but has called for sending the U.S. military to the border.

On various interviews with Fox News, he’s alluded to sending U.S. troops into Mexico if the country does not get drug cartels under control. “We will come in and get the job done ourselves,” he said in a Fox News interview in September.

He has also called for the ending of birthright citizenship, even though he was born in Ohio to parents who were both noncitizens. His mother later became a citizen, but his father is not. He has also called for the mass deportation of U.S. citizens who were born from undocumented parents.

Ramaswamy has called for gutting H-1B visa programs for temporary workers, even though, he, a former pharmaceutical executive, and his own company have used them, as reported by Politico. H-1B visas allow U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in tech and other specialized jobs.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

Christie does not have any information on his immigration stance on his official website, but in debates and interviews he has stressed the way to handle the fentanyl crisis is to secure the Southern border and to treat addiction as a disease, such as the need for treatment centers.

In the most recent GOP presidential debate, he said he wants to increase technology at ports of entry and increase the number of border officials. Christie said if he is elected president, he would sign an executive order to send National Guard members to ports of entry.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

While the former governor did not qualify for the most recent GOP presidential debate, he has one mention on his campaign’s website of immigration. He says he backs state-based visas.

“A one-size-fits-all approach does not adequately serve America’s varied industries and regional economies,” according to his campaign website.

The policy would allow states to design their own non-immigrant visa criteria, such as fees, employment requirements and renewal processes for visas.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum

During an interview with Forbes, Burgum said he supports sending the National Guard to the U.S. Southern border, which is something he’s done as governor. During his time in office, he also signed into law the Office of Legal Immigration to address workforce challenges in North Dakota.

Burgum has also acknowledged challenges to seasonal agriculture workers and tech employees and the “red tape” in U.S. immigration law.

Pastor and entrepreneur ​​Ryan Binkley

Binkley is the CEO of a merger and acquisitions advisory firm and a senior pastor at the Create Church based in Dallas, Texas.

On his campaign website, Binkley stated he would reorganize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to prioritize border security. He supports physical barriers along the Southern border and also wants to end sanctuary cities as well as the current program that allows asylum seekers to remain in the U.S. while they await their immigration hearings.

Binkley outlined his plan for border security that — if approved by Congress — would authorize $10 billion until fiscal year 2028 for technology at ports of entry and provide $25 billion in barriers and technology until fiscal year 2031.

Binkley would also allow DACA recipients to be eligible for a conditional permanent residence status for up to 10 years. Under his plan, those DACA recipients could become lawful permanent residents if they obtain a college or graduate degree, serve in the U.S. military for three years or are employed and working for four years. He would also extend in-state tuition for DACA recipients.

Binkley would also extend a legal pathway to citizenship for some TPS holders who have been continually present in the U.S. for three years as of March 2021. It would extend to TPS holders from  El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, but the cutoff date would not include those from Venezuela, Afghanistan, Haiti and Ukraine.

He has also called for a “Dignity Plan,” for undocumented immigrants, who would be required to pass a background check, pay any taxes owed, pay fines that total to $5,000 over seven years, and remain in good standing.

Those who complete the program would have two pathways to remain legally in the U.S. The first path allows those who complete the “Dignity Plan” to apply every five years for a lawful status and the second path allows for a lawful permanent resident status to those who learn English, pass a civics test and participate in volunteer work.

Source : Colorado News Line

The post Trump Immigration Policies Set the Tone for Most of the GOP Presidential Field appeared first on Policy Print.