 |
|
|
|||||
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the United States would withdraw from dozens of international and U.N. entities, including a key climate treaty and a U.N. body that promotes gender equality and women’s empowerment, because they “operate contrary to U.S. national interests.” Among the 35 non-U.N. groups and 31 U.N. entities Trump listed in a memo to senior administration officials is the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change described by many as the “bedrock” climate treaty which is parent agreement to the 2015 Paris climate deal. The United States skipped the annual U.N. international climate summit last year for the first time in three decades. “The United States would be the first country to walk away from the UNFCCC,” said Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Every other nation is a member, in part because they recognize that even beyond the moral imperative of addressing climate change, having a seat at the table in those negotiations represents an ability to shape massive economic policy and opportunity,” said Bapna. The U.S. will also quit UN Women, which works for gender equality and the empowerment of women, and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the international body’s agency focused on family planning as well as maternal and child health in more than 150 countries. The U.S. cut its funding for the UNFPA last year. “For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law,” reads the memo. Trump has already largely slashed voluntary funding to most U.N. agencies. A spokesperson for U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres did not immediately respond to a request for comment. TRUMP WARY OF MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS Trump’s move reflects his long-standing wariness of multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations. He has repeatedly questioned the effectiveness, cost and accountability of international bodies, arguing they often fail to serve U.S. interests. Since beginning his second term a year ago, Trump has sought to slash U.S. funding for the United Nations, stopped U.S. engagement with the U.N. Human Rights Council, extended a halt to funding for the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA and quit the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO. He has also announced plans to quit the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement. Other entities on the U.S. list are the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, the International Energy Forum, the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms and the U.N. Peacebuilding Commission. The White House said the dozens of entities that Washington was seeking to depart as soon as possible promote “radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.” It said the move is part of a review of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions and treaties. “These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions,” the White House said in a statement. Jasper Ward and Valerie Volcovici, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
Dog owners have a lot of choices nowadays when it comes to picking out pet food for their pup. Dry kibble or wet? Beef or chicken? Frozen, fresh, or raw? Brands even boast human-grade ingredients and grain-free recipes. If you have a dog, your decision may be focused on nutrients, or maybe price. But one vet-turned-environmental researcher wants you to also consider the climate impact. And that impact could be hugedepending on the type of food, your dogs diet could have a greater environmental impact than your own. Calculating the carbon footprint of dog food What we eat matters for the planet. Globally, food production is responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions and has impacts on biodiversity, deforestation, and water use. Climate experts agree that eating less meat and more plants is better for the environment. What we feed our pets matters too, says John Harvey, a veterinary surgeon working on environmental sustainability at the University of Edinburgh. In Harveys newest study, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production this week, researchers calculated the carbon footprint of nearly 1,000 types of dog food that are commercially available in the United Kingdom. Though the study is U.K. focused, the dog food market there is similar to the United States: the sample included dry, wet, and raw foods, as well as grain-free and even plant-based options. Harvey and his team found that in the U.K., the production of ingredients for dog food accounts for about 1% of the countrys total greenhouse gas emissions. Though 1% may seem small, it does matter, Harvey says. That’s big. Scaled up, the impact is clearer: If all dogs around the world were fed like they are in the U.K., the emissions to produce that food would be equivalent to more than half of all jet fuel emissions from global commercial aviation. (Dog food emissions actually range enough that they could be 59% to 99% of jet fuel emissions, when scaled up.) Its not clear what share of U.S. emissions comes from dog food, but dog ownership here is even higher. About 36% of U.K. households own a dog, for some 13 million total pups. In the U.S., more than 45% of households own a dog, for a total closer to 90 million, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. What type of dog food is the most environmentally friendly? Your dog’s environmental pawprint depends on what exactly their food is made up of. And depending on the ingredients, that impact can change drastically: Over those nearly 1,000 different types of pet food, the researchers found a 65-fold difference between lower-impact feed options and higher-impact food. For comparison, the difference between human diets is much smaller: an average high-meat human diet produces 2.5 times the emissions as an average vegan diet. The dog foods with the highest greenhouse gas emissions were those that are meat-rich, wet, raw, or grain-free, the study found. [Image: courtesy The University of Edinburgh] When we look at feeding a 20-kilogram [44-pound] dog on raw food or wet food, many of those have a higher impact than a high meat human diet, Harvey says. Wet grain-free and raw foods also come with about twice the emissions of a human vegan diet. Terms like grain free, fresh, or human grade may sound appealing to pet owners, but studies have found that they dont come with clear health benefits, or generally lack evidence that theyre superior. There are people who really believe in a particular type of feeling, for example, that dogs must be fed like wolves, only meat and raw bones, Harvey says. Well, I would say the veterinary profession I’m not sure is aligned with that, and the evidence isn’t necessarily aligned with those particular positions. Helping dog owners be more aware Harvey doesnt want to demonize any way an owner might feed their dog; he just wants pet owners to be a bit more aware. This is not about saying You’re doing the wrong thing or blaming people, he says. There are opportunities within every single class of food that we looked at to pick a dramatically lower environmentally impactful formulation, and there’s opportunities for manufacturers to reformulate. Beef and lamb are the worst climate offenders when it comes to proteins, for example, so it makes sense that beef and lamb dog foods come with higher emissions. Switching to dog food with chicken would reduce your pups diet emissions. Similarly, foods with prime cuts, similar to what humans eat, have a bigger environmental impact, while those that use meat byproducts are more sustainable. There are also plant-based dog foods, which come with some of the lowest emissions. Pet owners can also be cognizant of managing portion sizes and waste to make their dogs diets more environmentally friendly. Harvey focused on food because it comes with a big impact, but also because its changeable. He even has a website with more information for pet owners. He hopes pet owners do become more aware of the impact of their dogs diets, and that dog food manufacturers become more transparent and better about labeling their ingredients, so customers can make informed choices. With his background as a vet, Harvey knows that pets matter to people. He also knows that were facing a climate crisis. I’d like people to still be able to have a pet as the climate changes, he says. I want those two things to be compatible.
Category:
E-Commerce
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he plans to meet with Danish officials next week after the Trump administration doubled down on its intention to take over Greenland, the strategic Arctic island that is a self-governing territory of Denmark.Since the capture of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump has revived his argument that the United States needs to control the world’s largest island to ensure its own security in the face of rising threats from China and Russia in the Arctic.Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, had requested a meeting with Rubio, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland’s government website. Previous requests for a meeting were not successful, the statement said.Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force.The remarks, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, were made in a classified briefing Monday evening on Capitol Hill, according to a person with knowledge of his comments who was granted anonymity because it was a private discussion.On Wednesday, Rubio told reporters in Washington that Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since his first term. “That’s always been the president’s intent from the very beginning,” Rubio said. “He’s not the first U.S. president that has examined or looked at how we could acquire Greenland.” European leaders express concern The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in issuing a statement this week reaffirming that the mineral-rich island, which guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, “belongs to its people.” Frederiksen warned that a U.S. takeover would amount to the end of NATO.“The Nordics do not lightly make statements like this,” Maria Martisiute, a defense analyst at the European Policy Centre think tank, told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “But it is Trump whose very bombastic language bordering on direct threats and intimidation is threatening the fact to another ally by saying, ‘I will control or annex the territory.'”Rubio, who was on Capitol Hill for a classified briefing Wednesday with the entire U.S. Senate and House, did not directly answer reporters’ questions about whether the administration was willing to risk the NATO alliance by potentially moving ahead with a military option regarding Greenland.“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention, I’ll be meeting with them next week, we’ll have those conversations with them then, but I don’t have anything further to add to that,” Rubio said. He added that every president retains the option to address national security threats to the United States through military means.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that using the military to acquire Greenland was an option, though she told reporters Wednesday that “the president’s first option always has been diplomacy.”Some Republican senators said they saw strategic value in Greenland, but they stopped short of supporting military action to acquire it.Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall said he hoped “we can work out a deal,” while North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said some of the discussion about taking Greenland by force has been “misconstrued.”“One of the things about President Trump, you may have noticed, is he keeps our adversaries off balance by making sure they don’t know what we’re going to do,” Hoeven said.But Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she hated “the rhetoric around either acquiring Greenland by purchase or by force,” adding, “I think that it is very, very unsettling.”Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate NATO Observer Group, said the U.S. needs to honor its treaty obligations to Denmark.“Any suggestion that our nation would subject a fellow NATO ally to coercion or external pressure undermines the very principles of self-determination that our Alliance exists to defend,” the senators said in a joint statement. ‘This is America now’ Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College, said an American takeover would not help Washington’s national security.“The United States will gain no advantage if its flag is flying in Nuuk versus the Greenlandic flag,” he told the AP. “There’s no benefits to them because they already enjoy all of the advantages they want. If there’s any specific security access that they want to improve American security, they’ll be given it as a matter of course, as a trusted ally. So this has nothing to do with improving national security for the United States.”Denmark’s parliament approved a bill in June to allow U.S. military bases on Danish soil. It widened a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, in which U.S. troops had broad access to Danish air bases in the Scandinavian country. Denmark’s foreign minister has said that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the U.S. tries to annex all or part of Greenland.In the event of military action, the U.S. Department of Defense operates the remote Pituffik Space Base, in northwestern Greenland, and the troops there could be mobilized.Crosbie said he believes the U.S. would not seek to hurt the local population or engage with Danish troops.“They don’t need to bring any firepower. They don’t need to bring anybody,” Crosbie said Wednesday. “They could just direct the military personnel currently there to drive to the center of Nuuk and just say, ‘This is America now,’ right? And that would lead to the same response as if they flew in 500 or 1,000 people.”The danger in an American annexation, he said, lies in the “erosion of the rule of law globally and to the perception that there are any norms protecting anybody on the planet.”He added: “The impact is changing the map. The impact I don’t think would be storming the parliament.” Kim reported from Washington. Geir Moulson in Berlin, Mark Carlson in Brussels, and Ben Finley, Joey Cappelletti and Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed to this report. Stefanie Dazio and Seung Min Kim, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||