csmonitor--2020-12-03--Bars or schools? How nations rank education in pandemic priorities.

“ During a crisis you have to ask yourself what is really important .
On the question around reopening , do you open cinemas first or schools ?
” says Andreas Schleicher , director for education and skills at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris .
“ These are values questions .
Societies need to make tradeoffs between the present and the future , and they do that very differently.
” Cultural values in the U.S. that emphasize freedom and individual choice above all else have also undergirded decisions to open or close school .
Whereas in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising inequality and a desire to keep social safety nets firmly in place have prompted authorities to implore society to do its job – by forgoing nonessential activities – to help keep schools open .
Yet as case counts rise to significant levels across Europe and North America , many districts in the United States have done the opposite of Europe : They ’ ve kept children away from their classrooms even as nonessential businesses have been open for months .
In Europe – where positivity rates in some countries exceed the 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City students home – bars , indoor dining , and other nonessential businesses have been re-shuttered to safeguard schools .
Decisions whether to open or close schools , like so much else during the pandemic , are a moving target .
When New York City schools closed abruptly last month to in-person learning as COVID-19 positivity rates reached 3 % , Caroline Goldrick was incredulous .
On her street at the northern tip of Manhattan , her daughter ’ s elementary school doors were shuttered .
Those of restaurants and gyms remained wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backward .
To be honest , when I stop and think about it , I almost start crying .
I don ’ t get it .
I don ’ t understand what the priority is here , ” says Ms. Goldrick , a theater teacher and mother to a first grader in the public school system .
The daily commute is the opposite for Uwe Berlo in Berlin .
After he or his wife escort the kids to school , they can ’ t pop into a cafe for coffee or meet up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As German officials have nervously watched the country ’ s COVID-19 case count tick up toward 25,000 per day in recent weeks – with a countrywide positivity rate between 5 % and 10 % – their priorities in pandemic-management are clear .
Restaurants , bars , and gyms have shuttered to fight the second wave , so that 2.8 million primary schoolchildren can remain in class learning .
“ The risk of not going to school is much bigger , ” says Mr. Berlo , a crisis management business consultant in Berlin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country ] are differentiating between what we can fix with money , and those things that can ’ t be fixed with money , ” he says .
“ Psychological problems can ’ t be fixed with money .
It ’ s the right thing that schools are open.
” Decisions whether to open or close schools , like so much else during the pandemic , are a moving target .
Best practices are still evolving and schools shift course as the virus does .
Yet as case counts rise across Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States have done the opposite of Europe : They ’ ve kept kids away from their classrooms since March – from Chicago to Los Angeles – even as nonessential businesses have stayed open .
In Europe , where positivity rates in some countries far exceed the 3 % threshold that originally sent New York City public school kids home , bars and indoor dining and other nonessential businesses have been re-shuttered to safeguard schools .
Certainly , many of the same challenges affect school systems across the globe .
Unions battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teachers feel as though they have no choice but to return to class , even if they feel unsafe .
Parents everywhere worry – both about keeping their kids out of school and about putting them in .
But the decision-making around how and where American schoolchildren will spend their days has been affected by political polarization and a distrust of authorities that have made it harder to find consensus on responding to the pandemic , including education policy .
A set of cultural values in the U.S. that emphasizes freedom and individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions to open or close school .
Whereas in Europe and Canada , the costs of rising inequality and a desire to keep social safety nets firmly in place have prompted authorities to implore society to do its job – by forgoing nonessential activities – to help keep schools open .
“ During a crisis you have to ask yourself what is really important .
On the question around reopening , do you open cinemas first or schools ?
” says Andreas Schleicher , director for education and skills at the Organization for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Paris .
“ These are values questions .
Societies need to make tradeoffs between the present and the future , and they do that very differently.
” Still , some backtracking in the U.S. is happening .
More Americans have started to push for schools to reopen – essentially asking states to shift priorities to improve conditions for doing this .
New York City , which had opened with a hybrid model , only to close about two months later , announced earlier this week it will return some pre-kindergarten and elementary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 and do away with the 3 % positivity threshold for closing .
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has said that schools can operate with “ face to face learning ” and can do it “ safely and they can do it responsibly.
” Some U.S. school districts have had to delay reopening plans due to surges in cases .
Rhode Island recently chose to limit bar seating and close bowling alleys for a few weeks , while offering grants to business owners and keeping schools running – more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada have done .
Historically , the consequences of school closures can be long-lasting .
A September OECD study estimated that students in grades 1 through 12 affected by closures in 2020 could expect an average 3 % lower income over their lifetimes .
The most affected will be students who are most disadvantaged in the first place , says Harry Patrinos , practice manager at the World Bank ’ s education global practice .
From the Spanish flu of 1918-1920 to World War II , losses have been traced decades later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be huge , ” he says .
“ Past crises like influenza of 1918 and other catastrophes had lifetime impacts.
” In March when the pandemic was declared , 1.6 billion children around the world were sent home as schools shuttered .
It was during spring and summer , when nations turned to the task of planning and prioritizing and seeking to strengthen social trust through the process , that educational paths diverged .
For Germany the goals were clear from the beginning – even if the path to reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Education is a certified right in Germany .
We are an industrialized country and have relatively few natural resources , so we need professional workers who have a sensible education , ” says Norman Heise , the elected chairman of the Parents ’ Committee in Berlin , which represents the families of about 330,000 schoolchildren in the capital city .
For a wealthy country , Germany has a low level of digitization in schools , with only a third of children having access to online learning , well below the OECD average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s access to computers is also below the OECD benchmark .
This , coupled with the government ’ s longtime focus on mitigating educational inequality , factored into the federal government-level decision to keep schools open .
The heads of Germany ’ s 16 states , who are responsible for delivering education , might disagree on the extent to which economies should be shut down , or the logistics of keeping schools open , but agree on the importance of getting kids into classrooms .
School closings potentially exacerbate all kinds of social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic violence to falling behind because they lack access to Wi-Fi or laptops .
For some children , schools provide their only hot meal of the day , or a safe space to interact with adults outside the family .
Concern that educational inequalities would widen even further is a major factor in German decision-making , says Guido Küssner , an educational consultant at the German online school Wilhelm von Humboldt .
Public school closures could drive parents with resources to devise their own workarounds , including enrolling in private schools or employing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real fear of ‘ privatization , ’ ” says Mr. Küssner .
What ’ s next in the U.S. ?
In the U.S. , there are few doubts that the pandemic will accelerate privatization of education in the country – intensifying a debate that is deeply polarized there .
Public education was a foundation of the nation from its inception , says Derek W. Black , professor of law at the University of South Carolina in his new book “ Schoolhouse Burning.
” The federal government underwrote public education and forced states to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – to guarantee and shield it from the political process .
But the ideals of an education for all have never been realized .
A history of exclusion and segregation still manifests in stubborn racial and socioeconomic inequalities today , while the American localized approach leads to a patchwork of standards .
And many believe the privatization of education – which has gathered force since the Ronald Reagan administration – has made the system more vulnerable during the pandemic , which will in turn accelerate the trend .
“ Today we talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commodity rather than a constitutional commitment .
And now we are shrinking our obligation to it in ways we never have before , ” says Dr. Black .
“ We talk about the importance of education but the implementation and reality of that commitment is far more difficult because the stock market and the unemployment rate rule America in a way that it doesn ’ t necessarily rule the rest of the world.
” The federal government has given school boards little guidance .
And with misinformation surrounding the pandemic fairly common , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local districts and teachers unions .
Initially , unions were behind some of the push to keep schools closed .
Even where state governors have prioritized school openings , the community spread of the virus makes that logistically tenuous .
In New York City , where some schools are set to reopen Monday , parents are keenly aware the system could close back down at any moment .
Some , like Ms. Goldrick , who opted to keep her daughter in virtual classes because she doesn ’ t trust the safety of sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her out altogether and homeschooling instead .
“ She ’ s sitting in front of a screen for five hours a day , which is terrible , ” she says .
“ It starts to affect her attitude towards school , which is something that ’ s really hard to watch.
” It ’ s not that the situation is seamless for parents and teachers anywhere , including Germany .
Silke Steltner , a public school teacher in the state of Schleswig-Holstein , uses a pseudonym because she ’ s gotten threats for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says she has teacher friends who are high-risk or live with high-risk family members .
“ We teachers are being sacrificed for the economy , ” says Ms. Steltner .
“ It ’ s more about the working population being able to continue working .
So we are a bit like nannies.
” “ Are we doing this the right way ?
” Yet despite those universal concerns , Mr. Schleicher of the OECD says collaboration , not confrontation , has led countries like Germany to functioning academic fall terms while many places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The U.S. spends above the average of its peers in education but it neither values teachers enough – financially or intellectually – nor treats the school system as the heart of society , he says .
In China , or Singapore , or northern Europe , various actors have together grappled with the school question during the pandemic , whereas in the U.S. decision-making has become commodified and siloed .
“ It makes you a customer rather than a participant in the process , ” he says .
“ Where the social fabric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing a lot better in this crisis.
” Robert Pianta , dean of the school of education and human development at the University of Virginia , says this crisis has laid bare where America ’ s failings lie .
“ It has definitely exposed weaknesses , in the same way 9-11 exposed the weaknesses in our homeland security , ” he says .
“ I would hope that we are able to sit back and ask , ‘ Are we doing this the right way ?
’ and double down on our efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that system.
” In Germany , those questions were already settled .
Decision-making has been driven by research that shows children and young people are not the driving force behind the pandemic .
Nationwide , infection figures have remained low in schools , with the education policy officials highlighting the need for public cooperation .
People have a responsibility to restrict private lives and meetings with friends so that “ our children and young people can get the education they are entitled to , ” announced Stefanie Hubig , president of the conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in late October .
“ This is our educational policy , but it is also our task for society as a whole .
”

“During a crisis you have to ask yourself what is really important. On the question around reopening, do you open cinemas first or schools?” says Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. “These are values questions. Societies need to make tradeoffs between the present and the future, and they do that very differently.”
Cultural values in the U.S. that emphasize freedom and individual choice above all else have also undergirded decisions to open or close school. Whereas in Europe and Canada, the costs of rising inequality and a desire to keep social safety nets firmly in place have prompted authorities to implore society to do its job – by forgoing nonessential activities – to help keep schools open.
If education is the foundation of a functioning society, how should it be prioritized in a pandemic? The U.S. and Germany offer a tale of two approaches, pointing to the influence of culture on decision-making.
Yet as case counts rise to significant levels across Europe and North America, many districts in the United States have done the opposite of Europe: They’ve kept children away from their classrooms even as nonessential businesses have been open for months. In Europe – where positivity rates in some countries exceed the 3% threshold that recently sent New York City students home – bars, indoor dining, and other nonessential businesses have been re-shuttered to safeguard schools.
Decisions whether to open or close schools, like so much else during the pandemic, are a moving target.
When New York City schools closed abruptly last month to in-person learning as COVID-19 positivity rates reached 3%, Caroline Goldrick was incredulous. On her street at the northern tip of Manhattan, her daughter’s elementary school doors were shuttered. Those of restaurants and gyms remained wide open.
“It’s so backward. To be honest, when I stop and think about it, I almost start crying. I don’t get it. I don’t understand what the priority is here,” says Ms. Goldrick, a theater teacher and mother to a first grader in the public school system.
The daily commute is the opposite for Uwe Berlo in Berlin. After he or his wife escort the kids to school, they can’t pop into a cafe for coffee or meet up with friends for a leisurely restaurant brunch. As German officials have nervously watched the country’s COVID-19 case count tick up toward 25,000 per day in recent weeks – with a countrywide positivity rate between 5% and 10% – their priorities in pandemic-management are clear. Restaurants, bars, and gyms have shuttered to fight the second wave, so that 2.8 million primary schoolchildren can remain in class learning.
Why We Wrote This If education is the foundation of a functioning society, how should it be prioritized in a pandemic? The U.S. and Germany offer a tale of two approaches, pointing to the influence of culture on decision-making.
“The risk of not going to school is much bigger,” says Mr. Berlo, a crisis management business consultant in Berlin. “I think we [as a country] are differentiating between what we can fix with money, and those things that can’t be fixed with money,” he says. “Psychological problems can’t be fixed with money. It’s the right thing that schools are open.”
Annegret Hilse/Reuters View caption Hide caption Students at Martin-Buber-Oberschule secondary school wear protective masks as school resumes following the autumn holidays in Berlin on Oct. 26, 2020.
Decisions whether to open or close schools, like so much else during the pandemic, are a moving target. Best practices are still evolving and schools shift course as the virus does.
Yet as case counts rise across Europe and North America, many districts in the United States have done the opposite of Europe: They’ve kept kids away from their classrooms since March – from Chicago to Los Angeles – even as nonessential businesses have stayed open. In Europe, where positivity rates in some countries far exceed the 3% threshold that originally sent New York City public school kids home, bars and indoor dining and other nonessential businesses have been re-shuttered to safeguard schools.
Certainly, many of the same challenges affect school systems across the globe. Unions battle for better safety measures, while many teachers feel as though they have no choice but to return to class, even if they feel unsafe. Parents everywhere worry – both about keeping their kids out of school and about putting them in.
But the decision-making around how and where American schoolchildren will spend their days has been affected by political polarization and a distrust of authorities that have made it harder to find consensus on responding to the pandemic, including education policy. A set of cultural values in the U.S. that emphasizes freedom and individual choice above all else has also undergirded decisions to open or close school. Whereas in Europe and Canada, the costs of rising inequality and a desire to keep social safety nets firmly in place have prompted authorities to implore society to do its job – by forgoing nonessential activities – to help keep schools open.
“During a crisis you have to ask yourself what is really important. On the question around reopening, do you open cinemas first or schools?” says Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. “These are values questions. Societies need to make tradeoffs between the present and the future, and they do that very differently.”
Still, some backtracking in the U.S. is happening. More Americans have started to push for schools to reopen – essentially asking states to shift priorities to improve conditions for doing this. New York City, which had opened with a hybrid model, only to close about two months later, announced earlier this week it will return some pre-kindergarten and elementary students to in-person learning starting on Dec. 7 and do away with the 3% positivity threshold for closing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has said that schools can operate with “face to face learning” and can do it “safely and they can do it responsibly.” Some U.S. school districts have had to delay reopening plans due to surges in cases. Rhode Island recently chose to limit bar seating and close bowling alleys for a few weeks, while offering grants to business owners and keeping schools running – more along the lines of what Europe and Canada have done.
“Education is a certified right”
Historically, the consequences of school closures can be long-lasting. A September OECD study estimated that students in grades 1 through 12 affected by closures in 2020 could expect an average 3% lower income over their lifetimes.
The most affected will be students who are most disadvantaged in the first place, says Harry Patrinos, practice manager at the World Bank’s education global practice. From the Spanish flu of 1918-1920 to World War II, losses have been traced decades later. “I worry that the longterm impact is going to be huge,” he says. “Past crises like influenza of 1918 and other catastrophes had lifetime impacts.”
In March when the pandemic was declared, 1.6 billion children around the world were sent home as schools shuttered. It was during spring and summer, when nations turned to the task of planning and prioritizing and seeking to strengthen social trust through the process, that educational paths diverged.
For Germany the goals were clear from the beginning – even if the path to reopening was not without emotion or debate.
“Education is a certified right in Germany. We are an industrialized country and have relatively few natural resources, so we need professional workers who have a sensible education,” says Norman Heise, the elected chairman of the Parents’ Committee in Berlin, which represents the families of about 330,000 schoolchildren in the capital city.
For a wealthy country, Germany has a low level of digitization in schools, with only a third of children having access to online learning, well below the OECD average of 54%. German schoolchildren’s access to computers is also below the OECD benchmark.
Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters View caption Hide caption Teacher Eike Postler holds a tablet computer on which quarantined teacher Tobias Honnen is seen from his home office during a virtual English lesson at Alexander-Coppel-Gesamtschule school in Solingen, Germany, Nov. 17, 2020.
This, coupled with the government’s longtime focus on mitigating educational inequality, factored into the federal government-level decision to keep schools open. The heads of Germany’s 16 states, who are responsible for delivering education, might disagree on the extent to which economies should be shut down, or the logistics of keeping schools open, but agree on the importance of getting kids into classrooms.
School closings potentially exacerbate all kinds of social problems for children, from experiencing more domestic violence to falling behind because they lack access to Wi-Fi or laptops. For some children, schools provide their only hot meal of the day, or a safe space to interact with adults outside the family. Concern that educational inequalities would widen even further is a major factor in German decision-making, says Guido Küssner, an educational consultant at the German online school Wilhelm von Humboldt. Public school closures could drive parents with resources to devise their own workarounds, including enrolling in private schools or employing tutors. “There’s a real fear of ‘privatization,’” says Mr. Küssner.
What’s next in the U.S.?
In the U.S., there are few doubts that the pandemic will accelerate privatization of education in the country – intensifying a debate that is deeply polarized there.
Public education was a foundation of the nation from its inception, says Derek W. Black, professor of law at the University of South Carolina in his new book “Schoolhouse Burning.” The federal government underwrote public education and forced states to provide for it in their own constitutions – to guarantee and shield it from the political process.
Kathy Willens/AP View caption Hide caption Two students wave goodbye to teachers and counselors at West Brooklyn Community High School in New York after attending an in-person blended learning session and hearing from the principal that the school would be closed until further notice due to rising cases of the coronavirus on Nov. 18, 2020.
But the ideals of an education for all have never been realized. A history of exclusion and segregation still manifests in stubborn racial and socioeconomic inequalities today, while the American localized approach leads to a patchwork of standards. And many believe the privatization of education – which has gathered force since the Ronald Reagan administration – has made the system more vulnerable during the pandemic, which will in turn accelerate the trend.
“Today we talk about education as though it’s a commodity rather than a constitutional commitment. And now we are shrinking our obligation to it in ways we never have before,” says Dr. Black. “We talk about the importance of education but the implementation and reality of that commitment is far more difficult because the stock market and the unemployment rate rule America in a way that it doesn’t necessarily rule the rest of the world.”
The federal government has given school boards little guidance. And with misinformation surrounding the pandemic fairly common, distrust over how to respond has influenced local districts and teachers unions. Initially, unions were behind some of the push to keep schools closed. Even where state governors have prioritized school openings, the community spread of the virus makes that logistically tenuous.
In New York City, where some schools are set to reopen Monday, parents are keenly aware the system could close back down at any moment. Some, like Ms. Goldrick, who opted to keep her daughter in virtual classes because she doesn’t trust the safety of sending her back, is now considering pulling her out altogether and homeschooling instead. “She’s sitting in front of a screen for five hours a day, which is terrible,” she says. “It starts to affect her attitude towards school, which is something that’s really hard to watch.”
It’s not that the situation is seamless for parents and teachers anywhere, including Germany. Silke Steltner, a public school teacher in the state of Schleswig-Holstein, uses a pseudonym because she’s gotten threats for speaking out against school reopenings. She says she has teacher friends who are high-risk or live with high-risk family members.
“We teachers are being sacrificed for the economy,” says Ms. Steltner. “It’s more about the working population being able to continue working. So we are a bit like nannies.”
“Are we doing this the right way?”
Yet despite those universal concerns, Mr. Schleicher of the OECD says collaboration, not confrontation, has led countries like Germany to functioning academic fall terms while many places in the U.S. are still flailing.
The U.S. spends above the average of its peers in education but it neither values teachers enough – financially or intellectually – nor treats the school system as the heart of society, he says. In China, or Singapore, or northern Europe, various actors have together grappled with the school question during the pandemic, whereas in the U.S. decision-making has become commodified and siloed. “It makes you a customer rather than a participant in the process,” he says. “Where the social fabric of education is stronger, they are managing a lot better in this crisis.”
Robert Pianta, dean of the school of education and human development at the University of Virginia, says this crisis has laid bare where America’s failings lie. “It has definitely exposed weaknesses, in the same way 9-11 exposed the weaknesses in our homeland security,” he says. “I would hope that we are able to sit back and ask, ‘Are we doing this the right way?’ and double down on our efforts to dedicate ourselves to ‘harden’ that system.”
In Germany, those questions were already settled. Decision-making has been driven by research that shows children and young people are not the driving force behind the pandemic. Nationwide, infection figures have remained low in schools, with the education policy officials highlighting the need for public cooperation. People have a responsibility to restrict private lives and meetings with friends so that “our children and young people can get the education they are entitled to,” announced Stefanie Hubig, president of the conference of ministers of education and cultural affairs, in late October. “This is our educational policy, but it is also our task for society as a whole.”


csmonitor--2020-12-03--Why “the 26 words that created the internet” are under fire

“ These companies don ’ t have to bear the brunt of the abuse and the harassment and the misinformation that continues to flow from their platforms , ” says Mary Anne Franks at the University of Miami School of Law .
President Trump and other Republicans believe social media companies have censored conservative views , and many are outraged at Twitter ’ s and Facebook ’ s warning labels on the president ’ s posts about voter fraud .
President-elect Biden and many liberals , however , believe these companies have not done enough to battle misinformation and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , both sides are seeking to rein in the legal immunity Section 230 offers online services .
As “ Section 230 ” becomes a political buzzword , a bipartisan chorus of critics says the industry has become too powerful as its algorithms shape the flow of information .
But behind this debate are deeper questions about the evolving nature of free speech online that date back to the early optimism that once hailed the internet as a democratizing force fostering human liberty .
President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one issue : Both want to repeal a once-obscure federal law that has shielded internet companies from being held liable for the information users post .
Back in 1996 , when the World Wide Web was just beginning to revolutionize the ways human beings could communicate , many of those helping to build the emerging online tech industry were filled with a boundless sense of optimism .
The core of this optimism was the confidence that the internet could be a truly open space for freedom of speech .
It was an ethos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat sly “ A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace ” by the cyberlibertarian essayist and Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow .
He declared that the legal concepts of the world of matter , “ concepts of property , expression , identity , ” simply did not apply to the internet , a virtually pure digital space for freedom of speech beyond the “ governments of the industrial world , you weary giants of flesh and steel.
” “ We are creating a world where anyone , anywhere may express his or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity , ” Mr. Barlow wrote .
Aram Sinnreich , among the first internet industry analysts , remembers those heady days well .
“ Nineteen ninety-six was this moment in which the idea of the internet as a return to a kind of Eden was born in the popular consciousness , ” says Dr. Sinnreich , now the chair of the communication studies division at American University ’ s School of Communication in Washington .
“ It was posed like this stateless , identity-less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberate us from – from sin , from ‘ original sin , ’ really – and from nationalism and from violence and from racism and sexism and from all the other isms.
” That same year , too , Congress passed the so-called 26 words that created the internet , the once-obscure Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which created a new legal landscape for the internet and its portals of speech and information .
Reflecting the ethos of time , Section 230 granted emerging interactive services on the internet a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the weary world of flesh and steel .
Given the virtually borderless scope of the cyberworld , policymakers believed the industry would never flourish if it was liable for every iota of libel or reckless disregard for truth its millions of potential users might post to their sites .
Nearly 25 years later , optimism has turned into a general state of unease about the state of free speech online .
And this year critics from both the left and right have been calling for those 26 words to be repealed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each cite the growing power of social media giants like Facebook , Google , and Twitter , whose algorithmic architectures have in many ways come to control the information people see – or don ’ t see .
On Tuesday , President Donald Trump threatened to veto a defense policy bill if Congress didn ’ t include a provision to have Section 230 “ terminated , ” as he and other Republicans believe social media companies , and Twitter especially , have abused their far-reaching control of information to censor conservative views .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate are bringing the bill up for a vote anyway , with Republican lawmakers saying the defense bill is unrelated from Section 230 and shouldn ’ t be held up because of a separate issue .
But President-elect Joe Biden also suggested earlier this year that Section 230 should be “ revoked ” since social media sites , he said , had become virtual cauldrons of misinformation “ propagating falsehoods they know to be false.
” At the same time , many liberal critics say the founding laissez faire principles that shaped ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunities granted internet companies helped foster “ an information environment that is incredibly polluted , that ’ s making everyone sick , and where only the powerful really feel at liberty to speak freely , ” says Mary Anne Franks , professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law .
“ So in the end , not a big win for free speech , ” she says .
“ Everyone else is kind of where they were before , which is , yes , you can speak , but be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be defamed , be prepared to be abused and possibly threatened .
And the most powerful members of society will continue to be able to shout over you and have bigger platforms than you ever could possibly get.
” From the Arab Spring to troll culture A decade after the passage of Section 230 , however , the emergence of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter in the mid-2000s fed another wave of optimism about the possibilities of cyberspace and the cause of human freedom , says Dr. Sinnreich .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time when basically people are being told , ‘ OK , so the internet ’ s not going to erase sin and reset the human condition , ’ ” he says .
“ But what it is going to do is provide these tools that are going to democratize cultural power.
” An expert in the history of government regulations of media , he shared some of that optimism , seeing the possibilities of new forms of human communities that could potentially flourish outside government and corporate powers .
Social networks online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leading to political and social changes that diminish the power of elites .
At the time , the Obama administration was championing similar notions of internet freedom around the world , making it one of the paramount values of American foreign policy .
“ The idea was , if we can build platforms that allow everybody to participate in the cultural process , that will lead more people to participate in the civic process , ” Dr. Sinnreich says .
“ Which will then force autocratic and hierarchical governments to become more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doors to new markets , which will allow capitalism to flourish even more in the global arena.
” Events such as the Arab Spring in 2011 and other “ revolutions ” enabled by online social networks like Twitter only seemed to confirm this optimism that democracy and its bedrock principles of free speech could spread around the world .
But then it all came crashing down .
The promises of the Arab Spring never materialized .
Edward Snowden ’ s revelations uncovered massive online surveillance by the U.S. government .
And then a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often clothed in anonymity , used the internet ’ s social networks to build online communities committed to misogyny , racism , and white supremacy .
At the same time , the structural architecture of social media platforms enabled a massively lucrative business model rooted in the relentless and meticulous surveillance of billions of users ’ online behavior , experts say .
Social media companies then mine this data with algorithms that determine the limited , attention-grabbing information that flows to users ’ news feeds .
Scholars often call this business model “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human psychology – the strong emotions that tend to keep users glued to their feeds .
“ I ’ m kind of worried about how this has caused people to silo into their own kind of media ecosystems and echo chambers , ” says Tim Weninger , professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana , who has studied the structural impact of social media algorithms and the corresponding proliferation of misinformation and “ fake news.
” “ The challenges right now are to make people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uploads and retweets – all those go into Twitter ’ s and Facebook ’ s and Instagram ’ s and Reddit ’ s algorithms in order to feed back more information to keep you on the site , ” he says .
“ The primary goal is to keep you on the site so that you will click an ad and buy something , or do those things to help them generate revenue.
” In one of his studies , Dr. Weninger and his colleagues found that 75 % of users who share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those stories – which are often sensationalistic and evoke strong emotions .
His research also found that even a single share or “ like ” of certain posts has an enormous impact on how often algorithms will then push those posts to others .
“ What happens is that vote , that retweet , or that ‘ like ’ goes into the system as a signal to , hey , someone likes this , so show this to more people , ” Dr. Weninger says .
“ So as the algorithms take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coupled with the fact that we don ’ t really read the thing before we post them – those are basically the antecedents to fake news.
” To make matters worse , this kind of structural architecture lends itself to what he and other experts call “ coordinated inauthentic behavior , ” in which nefarious actors in places like China and Russia can game the system with posts and likes and shares for false information that pique users ’ emotions and help fake news go viral .
And the primary emotions driving affective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotions that a recent body of research suggests are a significant factor in making misinformation go viral , says Linda Peek Schacht , professor of leadership and public service at Lipscomb University in Tennessee .
“ We have had several generations now where that critical thinking , that media literacy , so necessary for the democratic process has not either been taught or nurtured , ” says Ms. Schacht , also a longtime board member of the International Women ’ s Media Foundation .
“ If you attack science enough , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack the government itself enough , you are in fact creating such distrust and rage that I would argue you ’ re burning down the democracy house.
” This year especially , however , as misinformation and conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19 and voter fraud began to proliferate on their platforms , companies like Twitter and Facebook have been forced to reconsider their outsize roles in the nation ’ s toxic political discourse and ever-widening divides .
Social media giants have also had to come to grips with what might be their unavoidable civic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information essential for any functioning democracy and their digital public spheres come to dominate public discourse .
In fact , earlier this year , after President Trump tweeted that mail-in voting would be “ substantially fraudulent ” and contribute to a “ Rigged Election ” in November , Twitter executives made a momentous decision : The company would , for the first time , post a warning label on the words of the president of the United States , calling his claims “ unsubstantiated.
” Facebook soon followed suit , though in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Trump ’ s similar post about mail-in voting leading “ to the most CORRUPT ELECTION in our Nation ’ s History !
” with a link to official information about voting procedures .
When Twitter was founded 14 years ago , company executives like to joke that it was “ the free speech wing of the free speech party , ” with few restrictions on the information their users post .
But the company has been forced to adjust , given the issues that have made Republicans and Democrats question the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 .
“ What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse , harassment , and misleading information that would cause offline harm , and they would leave our service because of it , ” Twitter ’ s CEO Jack Dorsey told a Senate panel in mid-November .
“ So our intention is to create clear policy , clear enforcement that enables people to feel that they can express themselves on our service and ultimately trust it.
” There are currently at least five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulators are continuing to seek ways to rein in the enormous power social media companies have come to wield .
But scholars like Dr. Weninger prefer to see the “ invisible hand ” of the market continue to shape these kinds of valuable services , with a minimum of new regulations .
“ I ’ m actually kind of happy that we ’ re having this kind of societal discussion right now , ” he says .
“ Most of my job is to point out things that are broken , the things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m optimistic that we ’ re going to figure it out .
”

“These companies don’t have to bear the brunt of the abuse and the harassment and the misinformation that continues to flow from their platforms,” says Mary Anne Franks at the University of Miami School of Law.
President Trump and other Republicans believe social media companies have censored conservative views, and many are outraged at Twitter’s and Facebook’s warning labels on the president’s posts about voter fraud. President-elect Biden and many liberals, however, believe these companies have not done enough to battle misinformation and the kind of abusive speech common online. As a result, both sides are seeking to rein in the legal immunity Section 230 offers online services.
Social media was once hailed a great democratizing force. But in an era of disinformation and the growth of hate groups, there has been a shift in thought from both liberals and conservatives. What is the civic responsibility of companies like Facebook and Twitter?
As “Section 230” becomes a political buzzword, a bipartisan chorus of critics says the industry has become too powerful as its algorithms shape the flow of information. But behind this debate are deeper questions about the evolving nature of free speech online that date back to the early optimism that once hailed the internet as a democratizing force fostering human liberty.
President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden have found common ground on at least one issue: Both want to repeal a once-obscure federal law that has shielded internet companies from being held liable for the information users post.
Back in 1996, when the World Wide Web was just beginning to revolutionize the ways human beings could communicate, many of those helping to build the emerging online tech industry were filled with a boundless sense of optimism.
The core of this optimism was the confidence that the internet could be a truly open space for freedom of speech. It was an ethos embodied that year by a much-circulated and somewhat sly “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” by the cyberlibertarian essayist and Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow. He declared that the legal concepts of the world of matter, “concepts of property, expression, identity,” simply did not apply to the internet, a virtually pure digital space for freedom of speech beyond the “governments of the industrial world, you weary giants of flesh and steel.”
“We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity,” Mr. Barlow wrote.
Why We Wrote This Social media was once hailed a great democratizing force. But in an era of disinformation and the growth of hate groups, there has been a shift in thought from both liberals and conservatives. What is the civic responsibility of companies like Facebook and Twitter?
Aram Sinnreich, among the first internet industry analysts, remembers those heady days well. “Nineteen ninety-six was this moment in which the idea of the internet as a return to a kind of Eden was born in the popular consciousness,” says Dr. Sinnreich, now the chair of the communication studies division at American University’s School of Communication in Washington.
“It was posed like this stateless, identity-less, free flow of consciousness that would liberate us from – from sin, from ‘original sin,’ really – and from nationalism and from violence and from racism and sexism and from all the other isms.”
That same year, too, Congress passed the so-called 26 words that created the internet, the once-obscure Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which created a new legal landscape for the internet and its portals of speech and information.
Reflecting the ethos of time, Section 230 granted emerging interactive services on the internet a general immunity from most speech-restricting civil codes in the weary world of flesh and steel. Given the virtually borderless scope of the cyberworld, policymakers believed the industry would never flourish if it was liable for every iota of libel or reckless disregard for truth its millions of potential users might post to their sites.
Nearly 25 years later, optimism has turned into a general state of unease about the state of free speech online. And this year critics from both the left and right have been calling for those 26 words to be repealed, or at least significantly changed, as each cite the growing power of social media giants like Facebook, Google, and Twitter, whose algorithmic architectures have in many ways come to control the information people see – or don’t see.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump threatened to veto a defense policy bill if Congress didn’t include a provision to have Section 230 “terminated,” as he and other Republicans believe social media companies, and Twitter especially, have abused their far-reaching control of information to censor conservative views. Both the Democrat-led House and the Republican-led Senate are bringing the bill up for a vote anyway, with Republican lawmakers saying the defense bill is unrelated from Section 230 and shouldn’t be held up because of a separate issue.
But President-elect Joe Biden also suggested earlier this year that Section 230 should be “revoked” since social media sites, he said, had become virtual cauldrons of misinformation “propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”
At the same time, many liberal critics say the founding laissez faire principles that shaped ideas of free speech online combined with the immunities granted internet companies helped foster “an information environment that is incredibly polluted, that’s making everyone sick, and where only the powerful really feel at liberty to speak freely,” says Mary Anne Franks, professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law.
“So in the end, not a big win for free speech,” she says. “Everyone else is kind of where they were before, which is, yes, you can speak, but be prepared to be harassed, be prepared to be defamed, be prepared to be abused and possibly threatened. And the most powerful members of society will continue to be able to shout over you and have bigger platforms than you ever could possibly get.”
Tara Todras-Whitehill/AP/File View caption Hide caption "We are the men of Facebook" is written on the ground as anti-government protesters gather in Tahrir Square in Cairo on Feb. 6, 2011. The staunchly pro-government Egyptian Parliament passed a bill July 16, 2018, targeting popular social media accounts that authorities accuse of publishing “fake news,” the latest move to suppress dissent and silence independent sources of news.
From the Arab Spring to troll culture
A decade after the passage of Section 230, however, the emergence of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter in the mid-2000s fed another wave of optimism about the possibilities of cyberspace and the cause of human freedom, says Dr. Sinnreich.
“So there’s this second moment in time when basically people are being told, ‘OK, so the internet’s not going to erase sin and reset the human condition,’” he says. “But what it is going to do is provide these tools that are going to democratize cultural power.”
An expert in the history of government regulations of media, he shared some of that optimism, seeing the possibilities of new forms of human communities that could potentially flourish outside government and corporate powers. Social networks online could enable “horizontal” cultural power, leading to political and social changes that diminish the power of elites.
At the time, the Obama administration was championing similar notions of internet freedom around the world, making it one of the paramount values of American foreign policy.
“The idea was, if we can build platforms that allow everybody to participate in the cultural process, that will lead more people to participate in the civic process,” Dr. Sinnreich says. “Which will then force autocratic and hierarchical governments to become more democratic, which will then open the doors to new markets, which will allow capitalism to flourish even more in the global arena.”
Events such as the Arab Spring in 2011 and other “revolutions” enabled by online social networks like Twitter only seemed to confirm this optimism that democracy and its bedrock principles of free speech could spread around the world.
But then it all came crashing down. The promises of the Arab Spring never materialized. Edward Snowden’s revelations uncovered massive online surveillance by the U.S. government. And then a new menace emerged: Troll culture, often clothed in anonymity, used the internet’s social networks to build online communities committed to misogyny, racism, and white supremacy.
At the same time, the structural architecture of social media platforms enabled a massively lucrative business model rooted in the relentless and meticulous surveillance of billions of users’ online behavior, experts say. Social media companies then mine this data with algorithms that determine the limited, attention-grabbing information that flows to users’ news feeds.
Scholars often call this business model “affective engagement,” or the monetization of human psychology – the strong emotions that tend to keep users glued to their feeds.
“I’m kind of worried about how this has caused people to silo into their own kind of media ecosystems and echo chambers,” says Tim Weninger, professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who has studied the structural impact of social media algorithms and the corresponding proliferation of misinformation and “fake news.”
“The challenges right now are to make people aware that their clicks and likes and uploads and retweets – all those go into Twitter’s and Facebook’s and Instagram’s and Reddit’s algorithms in order to feed back more information to keep you on the site,” he says. “The primary goal is to keep you on the site so that you will click an ad and buy something, or do those things to help them generate revenue.”
How rage and fear power fake news
In one of his studies, Dr. Weninger and his colleagues found that 75% of users who share news stories online only read the headlines of those stories – which are often sensationalistic and evoke strong emotions. His research also found that even a single share or “like” of certain posts has an enormous impact on how often algorithms will then push those posts to others.
“What happens is that vote, that retweet, or that ‘like’ goes into the system as a signal to, hey, someone likes this, so show this to more people,” Dr. Weninger says. “So as the algorithms take into account our votes and likes, coupled with the fact that we don’t really read the thing before we post them – those are basically the antecedents to fake news.”
To make matters worse, this kind of structural architecture lends itself to what he and other experts call “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” in which nefarious actors in places like China and Russia can game the system with posts and likes and shares for false information that pique users’ emotions and help fake news go viral.
And the primary emotions driving affective engagement are often fear and rage – emotions that a recent body of research suggests are a significant factor in making misinformation go viral, says Linda Peek Schacht, professor of leadership and public service at Lipscomb University in Tennessee.
“We have had several generations now where that critical thinking, that media literacy, so necessary for the democratic process has not either been taught or nurtured,” says Ms. Schacht, also a longtime board member of the International Women’s Media Foundation. “If you attack science enough, if you attack the press enough, if you attack the government itself enough, you are in fact creating such distrust and rage that I would argue you’re burning down the democracy house.”
This year especially, however, as misinformation and conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19 and voter fraud began to proliferate on their platforms, companies like Twitter and Facebook have been forced to reconsider their outsize roles in the nation’s toxic political discourse and ever-widening divides.
Civic responsibility vs. unfettered free speech
Social media giants have also had to come to grips with what might be their unavoidable civic responsibilities as they conduct the flow of information essential for any functioning democracy and their digital public spheres come to dominate public discourse.
In fact, earlier this year, after President Trump tweeted that mail-in voting would be “substantially fraudulent” and contribute to a “Rigged Election” in November, Twitter executives made a momentous decision: The company would, for the first time, post a warning label on the words of the president of the United States, calling his claims “unsubstantiated.”
Facebook soon followed suit, though in a different way, posting a label to Mr. Trump’s similar post about mail-in voting leading “to the most CORRUPT ELECTION in our Nation’s History!” with a link to official information about voting procedures.
When Twitter was founded 14 years ago, company executives like to joke that it was “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” with few restrictions on the information their users post. But the company has been forced to adjust, given the issues that have made Republicans and Democrats question the nation’s social media giants and Section 230.
“What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment, and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it,” Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey told a Senate panel in mid-November. “So our intention is to create clear policy, clear enforcement that enables people to feel that they can express themselves on our service and ultimately trust it.”
There are currently at least five new bills before Congress, and government regulators are continuing to seek ways to rein in the enormous power social media companies have come to wield.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
But scholars like Dr. Weninger prefer to see the “invisible hand” of the market continue to shape these kinds of valuable services, with a minimum of new regulations.
“I’m actually kind of happy that we’re having this kind of societal discussion right now,” he says. “Most of my job is to point out things that are broken, the things that are wrong. But overall, I’m optimistic that we’re going to figure it out.”


csmonitor--2020-12-03--How cyber war games in Estonia looked at future Russian threats

In a modern twist on old-fashioned war games , the United States military dispatched cyber fighters to Estonia this fall to help the small Baltic nation search out and block potential cyber threats from Russia .
The goal was not only to help a NATO partner long targeted by its powerful neighbor but also to gain insight on Russian tactics that could be used against the U.S. and its elections .
The U.S. Cyber Command operation occurred in Estonia from late September to early November , officials from both countries disclosed this week , just as the U.S. was working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference and to keep coronavirus research from the prying reach of hackers in countries including Russia and China .
Estonian officials say they found nothing malicious during the operation .
The mission , an effort analogous to two nations working jointly in a military operation on land or sea , represents an evolution in cyber tactics by U.S. forces who had long been more accustomed to reacting to threats but are now doing more – including operating in foreign countries – to glean advance insight into malicious activity and to stop attacks before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department has worked to highlight that more aggressive “ hunt forward ” strategy in recent years , particularly after Russia interfered through hacking and covert social media campaigns in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election .
American officials were on high alert for similar interference in 2020 but described no major problems on Nov. 3 .
“ When we look at the threats that we face , from Russia or other adversaries , it really is all about the partnerships and our ability to expand really the scope , scale and pace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more difficult for adversaries to execute operations either in the United States , Estonia , or other places , ” Brig .
Gen. William Hartman , commander of the Cyber National Mission Force , said in a conference call with a small group of reporters this week .
Estonia , a former Soviet republic , was in some ways a natural fit for a partnership with Cyber Command because in years past it has been a cyber target of nearby Russia , including crippling attacks on government networks in 2007 .
Estonian officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defenses , created a cybersecurity strategy , and developed their own cyber command , which like the U.S. version is part of the country ’ s military .
While nothing malicious was found on the networks during the exercise , “ what we did learn is how the U.S. conducts these kinds of operations , which is definitely useful for us because there are a lot of kind of capability developments that we are doing right now , ” said Mihkel Tikk , a deputy commander in Estonia ’ s Cyber Command .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas , it is wise to learn from others [ rather ] than having to reinvent the wheel.
” Mr. Hartman declined to discuss specifics of the operation but said the networks in Estonia were “ very well defended.
” “ I don ’ t want anyone to leave here with the impression that Estonian networks were full of adversary activity from a broad range of nation states , ” because that is not the case , he added .
Gen. Paul Nakasone , the commander of Cyber Command and the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a more aggressive , proactive federal government approach to cyber threats .
In an August piece for Foreign Affairs magazine , for instance , Mr. Nakasone wrote that U.S cyber fighters have moved away from a “ reactive , defensive posture ” and are increasingly engaging in combat with foreign adversaries online .
Cyber Command has worked in past years with countries including Montenegro and North Macedonia on similar missions .
Estonian officials say they believe the partnership could be a deterrent to countries such as Russia .
“ These kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue , ” said Undersecretary of Defense Margus Matt .
But , he added , “ I don ’ t know how much we will speak of them publicly.
” U.S. officials say they think the risks of a proactive approach – a country , for instance , could regard such an operation as a provocation toward a broader international cyber conflict – are outweighed by the benefits .
“ We believe that inaction in cyberspace contributes to escalation more than reasonable action in cyberspace , ” said Thomas Wingfield , deputy assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This story was reported by The Associated Press .

In a modern twist on old-fashioned war games, the United States military dispatched cyber fighters to Estonia this fall to help the small Baltic nation search out and block potential cyber threats from Russia. The goal was not only to help a NATO partner long targeted by its powerful neighbor but also to gain insight on Russian tactics that could be used against the U.S. and its elections.
The U.S. Cyber Command operation occurred in Estonia from late September to early November, officials from both countries disclosed this week, just as the U.S. was working to safeguard its election systems from foreign interference and to keep coronavirus research from the prying reach of hackers in countries including Russia and China.
Estonian officials say they found nothing malicious during the operation.
The mission, an effort analogous to two nations working jointly in a military operation on land or sea, represents an evolution in cyber tactics by U.S. forces who had long been more accustomed to reacting to threats but are now doing more – including operating in foreign countries – to glean advance insight into malicious activity and to stop attacks before they reach their targets.
The Defense Department has worked to highlight that more aggressive “hunt forward” strategy in recent years, particularly after Russia interfered through hacking and covert social media campaigns in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. American officials were on high alert for similar interference in 2020 but described no major problems on Nov. 3.
“When we look at the threats that we face, from Russia or other adversaries, it really is all about the partnerships and our ability to expand really the scope, scale and pace of operations in order to make it more difficult for adversaries to execute operations either in the United States, Estonia, or other places,” Brig. Gen. William Hartman, commander of the Cyber National Mission Force, said in a conference call with a small group of reporters this week.
Estonia, a former Soviet republic, was in some ways a natural fit for a partnership with Cyber Command because in years past it has been a cyber target of nearby Russia, including crippling attacks on government networks in 2007.
Estonian officials say they have since strengthened their cyber defenses, created a cybersecurity strategy, and developed their own cyber command, which like the U.S. version is part of the country’s military.
While nothing malicious was found on the networks during the exercise, “what we did learn is how the U.S. conducts these kinds of operations, which is definitely useful for us because there are a lot of kind of capability developments that we are doing right now,” said Mihkel Tikk, a deputy commander in Estonia’s Cyber Command.
Mr. Tikk added: “In some areas, it is wise to learn from others [rather] than having to reinvent the wheel.”
Mr. Hartman declined to discuss specifics of the operation but said the networks in Estonia were “very well defended.”
“I don’t want anyone to leave here with the impression that Estonian networks were full of adversary activity from a broad range of nation states,” because that is not the case, he added.
Gen. Paul Nakasone, the commander of Cyber Command and the director of the National Security Agency, has hinted at a more aggressive, proactive federal government approach to cyber threats.
In an August piece for Foreign Affairs magazine, for instance, Mr. Nakasone wrote that U.S cyber fighters have moved away from a “reactive, defensive posture” and are increasingly engaging in combat with foreign adversaries online.
Cyber Command has worked in past years with countries including Montenegro and North Macedonia on similar missions. Estonian officials say they believe the partnership could be a deterrent to countries such as Russia.
“These kinds of operations, I think, they will continue,” said Undersecretary of Defense Margus Matt. But, he added, “I don’t know how much we will speak of them publicly.”
U.S. officials say they think the risks of a proactive approach – a country, for instance, could regard such an operation as a provocation toward a broader international cyber conflict – are outweighed by the benefits.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“We believe that inaction in cyberspace contributes to escalation more than reasonable action in cyberspace,” said Thomas Wingfield, deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.


csmonitor--2020-12-03--US women in combat: Will equality affect national security?

But retired Col. Ellen Haring suspects that will change .
“ We have a lot more male champions today than when we came into the Army , ” she says .
“ It can just take time.
” “ We don ’ t find evidence of a massive shift in thinking about what women are capable of doing , even after serving and sacrificing in these heroic ways , ” says Dara Kay Cohen , associate professor of public policy at the Kennedy School and one of the study ’ s authors .
“ On a personal level , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The study also considered whether women “ fighting on the frontlines and making heroic sacrifices in combat ” might have “ broad implications for women ’ s equality.
” Among male respondents , the answer was another definitive no .
A recently released study answers definitively , no .
Women dying in combat did not diminish support for America ’ s wars , despite the number of fatalities .
Whether one woman died or a dozen , support for the war remained the same .
For over a decade now , many have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of servicewomen fighting – and dying – on the front lines .
Would hearing about women sacrificing their lives in combat make citizens reluctant to support America ’ s wars ?
After the ban on women in combat was lifted in 2013 ( initially subject to exceptions ) , debate raged about whether the death of female troops in battle , particularly in large numbers , would cause Americans to turn against their country ’ s wars in a way that men ’ s deaths don ’ t – and , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Opening combat jobs – without exception – to women in 2015 did little to quell the debate .
Two years later , the impact of women dying in combat was still a point of discussion , including in classrooms at Harvard University , where former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had just returned to teach .
“ There were people wildly speculating about the consequences of this [ women in combat ] change , ” says Connor Huff , a teaching assistant there at the time , “ and doing this with no evidence.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cohen , associate professor of public policy at the Kennedy School .
“ Connor said , ‘ Instead of just talking about it , let ’ s collect some data , ’ ” she recalls .
Last month they published the study , and the results were clear : Women dying in combat did not diminish support for America ’ s wars .
Early on in the project , their findings were so unequivocal that they decided to ask more questions .
What would happen , for example , if women were dying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothetical combat fatality was a man ( Todd Ryan ) or a woman ( Molly Ryan ) – and whether one woman died or a dozen – support for the war remained the same .
The study should “ put to bed the argument that women serving and sacrificing in these roles will be harmful to leaders ’ ability to wage war , ” Dr. Cohen says .
It seems like a point that should have been shelved long ago , particularly given that 173 American servicewomen have died for their country since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halt , notes retired Col. Ellen Haring , a 1984 West Point graduate who , in 2012 , sued the Department of Defense for its combat exclusion policy .
Still , she adds , “ I wish this study would have come out five or 10 years ago.
” In addition to the argument that women should be protected from fighting wars due to their inherent weakness , in the early days of women in combat , the study notes , there was concern among advocates that detractors could interpret the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the front lines , their dying as evidence of poor performance in battle .
That argument never gained much traction , but American women in combat remained a touchy subject .
In 2018 , for example , then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis told an audience at Virginia Military Institute that infantry troops are “ necessarily macho ” since war is “ the most primitive – I would say even evil – environment.
” In that context , he added that the “ jury is out ” on whether women can make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three years after the Pentagon opened all combat jobs to women – including the infantry and special operations forces – and three years after the first women graduated from the Army ’ s grueling Ranger School .
Today , some 50 women have earned their Ranger tabs , and there are nearly 1,000 women serving as infantry soldiers , tankers , and cavalry scouts , front-line jobs previously closed to them .
As women have moved into these jobs , the hope among advocates has been that respect for them might grow in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a path to , as the study puts it , “ first-class citizenship.
” Dr. Cohen and Dr. Huff , now an assistant professor of political science at Rice University in Texas , along with their co-author Robert Schub of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln , looked into this , too , collecting data on whether , according to the study , women “ fighting on the frontlines and making heroic sacrifices in combat ” might have “ broad implications for women ’ s equality.
” It doesn ’ t appear to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t find evidence of a massive shift in thinking about what women are capable of doing , even after serving and sacrificing in these heroic ways , ” Dr. Cohen says .
“ On a personal level , that was a depressing finding for us.
” As the study puts it , “ Combat service – and indeed , combat sacrifice – alone appears to be insufficient to yield women ‘ first-class citizenship ’ among the U.S. public that the most ardent supporters hope to achieve.
” Military women serving in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are not doing it to garner special kudos , or even to make a statement – other than that they want to fight in the same way their male counterparts do .
Still , the finding is “ very disappointing , ” Colonel Haring says .
Among women , however , the study ’ s findings were different .
Hearing about women serving and dying in combat did seem to boost support for women ’ s equality among other women .
This included , for example , creating more positive views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There appears to be a “ kind [ of ] aspirational effect on women , ” Dr. Cohen says , noting that a number of studies have shown that if there ’ s a female instructor for an introductory economics class , for example , more women tend to declare an economics major , “ but it doesn ’ t have that effect on men , ” she adds .
“ Seeing someone like you do something inspiring or heroic has an effect on similar people.
” This may have had something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who served in the military ran for elective office in larger numbers than ever before in both the 2018 and 2020 elections , the study argues : “ Having status as a veteran increased public perceptions of the legitimacy and authority of female candidates.
” And though women in combat may not have an immediate impact on how men view women ’ s equality , it may over time , Colonel Haring says .
“ Look , 100 years ago , it would have been inconceivable for a woman to command a Navy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even blinked at , ” she adds .
“ I also know we have a lot more male champions today than when we came into the Army – it can just take time .
”

But retired Col. Ellen Haring suspects that will change. “We have a lot more male champions today than when we came into the Army,” she says. “It can just take time.”
“We don’t find evidence of a massive shift in thinking about what women are capable of doing, even after serving and sacrificing in these heroic ways,” says Dara Kay Cohen, associate professor of public policy at the Kennedy School and one of the study’s authors. “On a personal level, that was a depressing finding for us.”
The study also considered whether women “fighting on the frontlines and making heroic sacrifices in combat” might have “broad implications for women’s equality.” Among male respondents, the answer was another definitive no.
Sometimes the anticipated consequences of policy changes don’t materialize. A case in point: Lifting the ban on U.S. servicewomen fighting – and dying – in combat hasn’t dampened Americans’ support for war.
A recently released study answers definitively, no. Women dying in combat did not diminish support for America’s wars, despite the number of fatalities. Whether one woman died or a dozen, support for the war remained the same.
For over a decade now, many have worried about the impact on public opinion of servicewomen fighting – and dying – on the front lines. Would hearing about women sacrificing their lives in combat make citizens reluctant to support America’s wars?
After the ban on women in combat was lifted in 2013 (initially subject to exceptions), debate raged about whether the death of female troops in battle, particularly in large numbers, would cause Americans to turn against their country’s wars in a way that men’s deaths don’t – and, in the process, imperil U.S. national security.
Opening combat jobs – without exception – to women in 2015 did little to quell the debate.
Two years later, the impact of women dying in combat was still a point of discussion, including in classrooms at Harvard University, where former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had just returned to teach. “There were people wildly speculating about the consequences of this [women in combat] change,” says Connor Huff, a teaching assistant there at the time, “and doing this with no evidence.”
Why We Wrote This Sometimes the anticipated consequences of policy changes don’t materialize. A case in point: Lifting the ban on U.S. servicewomen fighting – and dying – in combat hasn’t dampened Americans’ support for war.
He mentioned this to Dara Kay Cohen, associate professor of public policy at the Kennedy School. “Connor said, ‘Instead of just talking about it, let’s collect some data,’” she recalls.
Last month they published the study, and the results were clear: Women dying in combat did not diminish support for America’s wars.
Early on in the project, their findings were so unequivocal that they decided to ask more questions. What would happen, for example, if women were dying in greater numbers? But whether the hypothetical combat fatality was a man (Todd Ryan) or a woman (Molly Ryan) – and whether one woman died or a dozen – support for the war remained the same.
The study should “put to bed the argument that women serving and sacrificing in these roles will be harmful to leaders’ ability to wage war,” Dr. Cohen says.
It seems like a point that should have been shelved long ago, particularly given that 173 American servicewomen have died for their country since 2001 without the wars grinding to a halt, notes retired Col. Ellen Haring, a 1984 West Point graduate who, in 2012, sued the Department of Defense for its combat exclusion policy. Still, she adds, “I wish this study would have come out five or 10 years ago.”
Combat sacrifice but not “first-class citizenship”
In addition to the argument that women should be protected from fighting wars due to their inherent weakness, in the early days of women in combat, the study notes, there was concern among advocates that detractors could interpret the death of female soldiers as confirmation of their unfitness for the front lines, their dying as evidence of poor performance in battle.
That argument never gained much traction, but American women in combat remained a touchy subject. In 2018, for example, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis told an audience at Virginia Military Institute that infantry troops are “necessarily macho” since war is “the most primitive – I would say even evil – environment.” In that context, he added that the “jury is out” on whether women can make the U.S. military more combat-effective.
This was three years after the Pentagon opened all combat jobs to women – including the infantry and special operations forces – and three years after the first women graduated from the Army’s grueling Ranger School. Today, some 50 women have earned their Ranger tabs, and there are nearly 1,000 women serving as infantry soldiers, tankers, and cavalry scouts, front-line jobs previously closed to them.
As women have moved into these jobs, the hope among advocates has been that respect for them might grow in the eyes of their fellow countrymen, creating a path to, as the study puts it, “first-class citizenship.” Dr. Cohen and Dr. Huff, now an assistant professor of political science at Rice University in Texas, along with their co-author Robert Schub of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, looked into this, too, collecting data on whether, according to the study, women “fighting on the frontlines and making heroic sacrifices in combat” might have “broad implications for women’s equality.”
It doesn’t appear to, at least among men. “We don’t find evidence of a massive shift in thinking about what women are capable of doing, even after serving and sacrificing in these heroic ways,” Dr. Cohen says. “On a personal level, that was a depressing finding for us.”
As the study puts it, “Combat service – and indeed, combat sacrifice – alone appears to be insufficient to yield women ‘first-class citizenship’ among the U.S. public that the most ardent supporters hope to achieve.”
Military women serving in these roles often take pains to emphasize that they are not doing it to garner special kudos, or even to make a statement – other than that they want to fight in the same way their male counterparts do. Still, the finding is “very disappointing,” Colonel Haring says.
Tae-Gyun Kim/AP/File View caption Hide caption Maj. Shanelle Porter, commanding officer at Recruiting Station Chicago, stands outside her office in Des Plaines, Illinois, on Aug. 5, 2016. U.S. Marine Corps recruiters are turning to girls' high school sports teams to find candidates who may be able to meet the Corps’ rigorous physical standards for front-line combat jobs.
Women soldiers as role models for women
Among women, however, the study’s findings were different. Hearing about women serving and dying in combat did seem to boost support for women’s equality among other women. This included, for example, creating more positive views of women’s fitness for leadership.
There appears to be a “kind [of] aspirational effect on women,” Dr. Cohen says, noting that a number of studies have shown that if there’s a female instructor for an introductory economics class, for example, more women tend to declare an economics major, “but it doesn’t have that effect on men,” she adds. “Seeing someone like you do something inspiring or heroic has an effect on similar people.”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
This may have had something to do with the fact that women who served in the military ran for elective office in larger numbers than ever before in both the 2018 and 2020 elections, the study argues: “Having status as a veteran increased public perceptions of the legitimacy and authority of female candidates.”
And though women in combat may not have an immediate impact on how men view women’s equality, it may over time, Colonel Haring says. “Look, 100 years ago, it would have been inconceivable for a woman to command a Navy ship. Now it’s not even blinked at,” she adds. “I also know we have a lot more male champions today than when we came into the Army – it can just take time.”


csmonitor--2020-12-03--As food industry makes green shift, some farmers see an opening

Rice grown with less water , rye planted in the off-season , and the sale of carbon credits to tech firms are just a few of the changes being embraced by American and Canadian farmers as the food industry strives to go green .
The changes are enabling some farmers to earn extra money from industry giants like Cargill , Nutrien , and Anheuser-Busch .
They come as consumers are pressuring food producers to support farms that use less water and fertilizer , reduce greenhouse gas emissions , and use more natural techniques to maintain soil quality .
Investments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending by the agriculture sector , which enjoyed healthy profits in 2020 .
But they might also help head off more costly environmental regulations down the road now that Joe Biden was elected United States president .
Some companies , like farm retailer and fertilizer producer Nutrien , are also opening new revenue potential for farmers by monetizing the carbon their fields soak up .
The companies say technology is improving measurement and tracking of carbon capture , although some environmental activists question the benefit of such programs and how sequestered greenhouse gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers are adopting include refraining from tilling soil at times in an effort to preserve carbon .
Some are adding an off-season cover crop of rye or grass to restore soil nutrients instead of applying heavy fertilizer loads over the winter that can contaminate local water supplies .
A study conducted by agriculture technology company Indigo Ag estimated that if U.S. corn , soy , and wheat farmers employed no-till and cover crops on 15 % of fields , they would generate an additional $ 600 million by reducing costs , bolstering soil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indigo has a partnership with brewer Anheuser-Busch Inbev NV , which plans this year to buy 2.6 million bushels of rice grown with less water and nitrogen fertilizer than conventional rice .
Anheuser-Busch said that is up from 2.2 million bushels last year and accounts for 10 % of its U.S. rice supplies .
Bill Jones , the brewer ’ s manager of raw materials , said farmers voluntarily growing rice with a lower environmental impact along the sensitive Mississippi River would be less disruptive to supply chains than having local authorities require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nitrogen use .
“ We look at supply chain security .
I see this gaining traction , ” he said , noting that Minnesota and other U.S. states and conservation districts worried about polluting the Mississippi are already introducing limits on how much manure farmers can spread on fields .
Arkansas farmer Carson Stewart used the program for the first time this year , earmarking his entire 340-acre rice crop to Anheuser-Busch .
Depending on milling quality , his rice may earn up to $ 1.50 a bushel more than conventional rice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said .
While companies expect Washington and Ottawa to grow more committed to funding and regulating sustainable farming , industry sources and activists said widespread adoption remains far off .
“ They come with high up-front costs , ” said Giana Amador , managing director at climate-focused NGO Carbon180 .
“ We ’ re seeing a huge differentiation in quality among all these corporate commitments.
” In September , privately held Cargill Inc. said it would help North American farmers shift 10 million acres to regenerative practices during the next 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training .
Pushed by a demand for greener foods from food companies that buy its products , Cargill has already signed up 750 farmers for its green programs , representing 300,000 acres , said Ryan Sirolli , Cargill ’ s director of row crop sustainability .
Another group , Farmers Business Network , matches farmers using sustainable practices with buyers such as Unilever , Tyson Foods , and ethanol producer POET .
With projects like one that pays Iowa farmers to leave soils untilled or to create field buffers to prevent fertilizer runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its supply chain greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade .
“ We ’ ve done a lot to stop soil erosion .
And we ’ ve had a reduction of 538 tons of CO2 , which is the equivalent of taking 104 passenger cars off the road , ” said Iowa farmer Lance Lillibridge , who estimates he will earn about $ 37 an acre in a Cargill pilot project this year .
Environmental groups and consumer activists are skeptical about such corporate sustainability pledges , noting that Cargill has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deforestation from supply chains by 2020 .
But as more premium-paying buyers emerge , more farmers will be enticed into sustainable growing , said Devin Lammers , CEO of Gradable , an farming group associated with Farmers Business Network .
Some farmers are making money by verifying the amount of climate-warming emissions their fields soak up and selling carbon credits to polluting companies seeking to reduce their net emissions .
Agribusiness companies call that a double win for farmers as their fields become healthier and they earn extra cash .
This week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainable agriculture program on 100,000 acres in the U.S. and Canada , with expansion planned later in South America and Australia .
Nutrien Chief Executive Chuck Magro estimated that farmers will earn an additional $ 50 per acre in profits under the program – $ 20 per acre for carbon credits and $ 30 per acre worth of higher crop yields .
The announcement followed Nutrien ’ s 2018 purchase of digital farming company Agrible , which helps farmers log reduced emissions and water use .
Mr. Magro said in an interview that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use that data to sell carbon credits .
He noted that previous efforts produced meager returns that were not worth the effort for farmers who had to wade through hundreds of pages of documents .
Agriculture accounts for 3 % of the global carbon credit market , but that could grow to 30 % by 2050 , Mr. Magro said .
“ We see carbon being the next big agricultural revolution , ” he said .
Matt Coutts , chief investment officer of 100,000-acre Coutts Agro , in Saskatchewan , plans to sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10,000 acres per year of canola , lentils , and spring wheat .
He expects they could eventually generate at least $ 58,000 in annual additional revenue .
Ohio-based start-up Locus Agricultural Solutions helped Iowa farmer Kelly Garrett create 22,400 tonnes in carbon credits by verifying his fields locked in about 1.4 metric tons per acre from 2015 to 2019 .
Mr. Garrett received a check for 5,000 of those credits in November , after e-commerce platform Shopify bought them on the carbon trading marketplace Nori for $ 75,000 .
“ The ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nori system and help the rest of the world be more green is a wonderful benefit to our economy and our finances , ” Mr. Garrett said .
Still , Nori noted that Microsoft Corp. passed on a deal to buy most of Mr. Garrett ’ s remaining credits because they were not verified by on-farm soil tests .
Nori deems individual soil tests too costly , and instead verifies its credits based on soil type , crops planted , and other data , said Alexsandra Guerra , the company ’ s director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers have gone through the vetting process Mr. Garrett underwent , which also limits supplies of the high-quality carbon credits that some buyers seek .
Some critics say carbon saved from no-till farming can easily escape if the soil is tilled again .
“ Statements that soils can sequester all of our emissions and more are overstated .
...
There ’ s no way we could make that shift fast enough to address the climate crisis , ” said Tara Ritter , senior program associate with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are banking more on carbon capture and regenerative agriculture .
General Mills offers farmers technical advice while other companies pay growers up front to adopt greener practices .
PepsiCo , maker of Quaker Oats and Frito-Lay chips , pays farmers $ 10 an acre to plant cover crops over winter , which can reduce erosion and control weeds and insects .
This helps PepsiCo meet its sustainability targets and secure its food supply , said director of sustainable agriculture Margaret Henry .
PepsiCo subsidized cover crops such as rye and radish last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grow the program further .
Ms. Henry pointed to an added benefit : Cover crops soak up excess moisture , making many fields ready for spring planting two weeks earlier than fields that lay fallow .
This story was reported by Reuters .

Rice grown with less water, rye planted in the off-season, and the sale of carbon credits to tech firms are just a few of the changes being embraced by American and Canadian farmers as the food industry strives to go green.
The changes are enabling some farmers to earn extra money from industry giants like Cargill, Nutrien, and Anheuser-Busch. They come as consumers are pressuring food producers to support farms that use less water and fertilizer, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and use more natural techniques to maintain soil quality.
Investments in sustainability remain a tiny part of overall spending by the agriculture sector, which enjoyed healthy profits in 2020. But they might also help head off more costly environmental regulations down the road now that Joe Biden was elected United States president.
Some companies, like farm retailer and fertilizer producer Nutrien, are also opening new revenue potential for farmers by monetizing the carbon their fields soak up. The companies say technology is improving measurement and tracking of carbon capture, although some environmental activists question the benefit of such programs and how sequestered greenhouse gas volumes can be verified.
Sustainable techniques farmers are adopting include refraining from tilling soil at times in an effort to preserve carbon. Some are adding an off-season cover crop of rye or grass to restore soil nutrients instead of applying heavy fertilizer loads over the winter that can contaminate local water supplies.
A study conducted by agriculture technology company Indigo Ag estimated that if U.S. corn, soy, and wheat farmers employed no-till and cover crops on 15% of fields, they would generate an additional $600 million by reducing costs, bolstering soil productivity, or selling carbon credits.
Indigo has a partnership with brewer Anheuser-Busch Inbev NV, which plans this year to buy 2.6 million bushels of rice grown with less water and nitrogen fertilizer than conventional rice. Anheuser-Busch said that is up from 2.2 million bushels last year and accounts for 10% of its U.S. rice supplies.
Bill Jones, the brewer’s manager of raw materials, said farmers voluntarily growing rice with a lower environmental impact along the sensitive Mississippi River would be less disruptive to supply chains than having local authorities require such practices by legislating changes to water and nitrogen use.
“We look at supply chain security. I see this gaining traction,” he said, noting that Minnesota and other U.S. states and conservation districts worried about polluting the Mississippi are already introducing limits on how much manure farmers can spread on fields.
Arkansas farmer Carson Stewart used the program for the first time this year, earmarking his entire 340-acre rice crop to Anheuser-Busch. Depending on milling quality, his rice may earn up to $1.50 a bushel more than conventional rice, a premium of about 27%, he said.
10 million acre shift
While companies expect Washington and Ottawa to grow more committed to funding and regulating sustainable farming, industry sources and activists said widespread adoption remains far off.
“They come with high up-front costs,” said Giana Amador, managing director at climate-focused NGO Carbon180. “We’re seeing a huge differentiation in quality among all these corporate commitments.”
In September, privately held Cargill Inc. said it would help North American farmers shift 10 million acres to regenerative practices during the next 10 years by offering them financial support and training.
Pushed by a demand for greener foods from food companies that buy its products, Cargill has already signed up 750 farmers for its green programs, representing 300,000 acres, said Ryan Sirolli, Cargill’s director of row crop sustainability. Another group, Farmers Business Network, matches farmers using sustainable practices with buyers such as Unilever, Tyson Foods, and ethanol producer POET.
With projects like one that pays Iowa farmers to leave soils untilled or to create field buffers to prevent fertilizer runoff, Cargill hopes to cut 30% of its supply chain greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.
“We’ve done a lot to stop soil erosion. And we’ve had a reduction of 538 tons of CO2, which is the equivalent of taking 104 passenger cars off the road,” said Iowa farmer Lance Lillibridge, who estimates he will earn about $37 an acre in a Cargill pilot project this year.
Environmental groups and consumer activists are skeptical about such corporate sustainability pledges, noting that Cargill has not made good on its promise to eliminate deforestation from supply chains by 2020.
But as more premium-paying buyers emerge, more farmers will be enticed into sustainable growing, said Devin Lammers, CEO of Gradable, an farming group associated with Farmers Business Network.
Carbon credits
Some farmers are making money by verifying the amount of climate-warming emissions their fields soak up and selling carbon credits to polluting companies seeking to reduce their net emissions. Agribusiness companies call that a double win for farmers as their fields become healthier and they earn extra cash.
This week, Saskatchewan-based Nutrien said it was launching a sustainable agriculture program on 100,000 acres in the U.S. and Canada, with expansion planned later in South America and Australia.
Nutrien Chief Executive Chuck Magro estimated that farmers will earn an additional $50 per acre in profits under the program – $20 per acre for carbon credits and $30 per acre worth of higher crop yields.
The announcement followed Nutrien’s 2018 purchase of digital farming company Agrible, which helps farmers log reduced emissions and water use. Mr. Magro said in an interview that the aim is to enable farmers to use that data to sell carbon credits. He noted that previous efforts produced meager returns that were not worth the effort for farmers who had to wade through hundreds of pages of documents.
Agriculture accounts for 3% of the global carbon credit market, but that could grow to 30% by 2050, Mr. Magro said.
“We see carbon being the next big agricultural revolution,” he said.
Matt Coutts, chief investment officer of 100,000-acre Coutts Agro, in Saskatchewan, plans to sell carbon credits through Nutrien for up to 10,000 acres per year of canola, lentils, and spring wheat. He expects they could eventually generate at least $58,000 in annual additional revenue.
Ohio-based start-up Locus Agricultural Solutions helped Iowa farmer Kelly Garrett create 22,400 tonnes in carbon credits by verifying his fields locked in about 1.4 metric tons per acre from 2015 to 2019. Mr. Garrett received a check for 5,000 of those credits in November, after e-commerce platform Shopify bought them on the carbon trading marketplace Nori for $75,000.
“The ability to sell our carbon credits through the Nori system and help the rest of the world be more green is a wonderful benefit to our economy and our finances,” Mr. Garrett said.
Still, Nori noted that Microsoft Corp. passed on a deal to buy most of Mr. Garrett’s remaining credits because they were not verified by on-farm soil tests. Nori deems individual soil tests too costly, and instead verifies its credits based on soil type, crops planted, and other data, said Alexsandra Guerra, the company’s director of corporate development.
Microsoft declined to comment.
Few North American farmers have gone through the vetting process Mr. Garrett underwent, which also limits supplies of the high-quality carbon credits that some buyers seek.
Some critics say carbon saved from no-till farming can easily escape if the soil is tilled again.
“Statements that soils can sequester all of our emissions and more are overstated. ... There’s no way we could make that shift fast enough to address the climate crisis,” said Tara Ritter, senior program associate with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Paying upfront
Despite those doubts, food companies are banking more on carbon capture and regenerative agriculture. General Mills offers farmers technical advice while other companies pay growers up front to adopt greener practices.
PepsiCo, maker of Quaker Oats and Frito-Lay chips, pays farmers $10 an acre to plant cover crops over winter, which can reduce erosion and control weeds and insects.
This helps PepsiCo meet its sustainability targets and secure its food supply, said director of sustainable agriculture Margaret Henry. PepsiCo subsidized cover crops such as rye and radish last year across 50,000 Midwest acres and plans to grow the program further.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Ms. Henry pointed to an added benefit: Cover crops soak up excess moisture, making many fields ready for spring planting two weeks earlier than fields that lay fallow.
This story was reported by Reuters.