A Trump administration requirement that all visa applicants turn their social media information over to federal agencies will chill free speech online and be especially dangerous for journalists traveling to the U.S. from countries with repressive governments, two rights groups argued in federal court on Thursday.
Representing documentary filmmakers from all over the world, the Knight First Amendment Institute and Brennan Center for Justice filed a complaint against the rule, which went into effect in May.
The rule “stifles speech on the largest platforms for public discourse—including this one,” wrote Carrie DeCell, an attorney for the Knight Institute, on Twitter.
The Knight Institute and Brennan Center are representing the Doc Society and the International Documentary Association (IDA), which count hundreds of filmmakers from all over the world as their members, many of whom make political films.
Filmmakers are among nearly 15 million visa applicants per year who are now required to turn over handles they’ve used for the preceding five years on 20 different social media platforms. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can retain the information indefinitely and in some cases share the applicants’ social media accounts with foreign governments, including those of their home countries.
The Doc Society and IDA surveyed more than 100 of their international members and found that many were “concerned that their political views will be used against them during the visa process.”
The requirement could be particularly dangerous for filmmakers coming to the U.S. from repressive regimes which do not observe free speech rights, the groups said. For journalists in such countries, maintaining anonymity online “can be a matter of life and death,” said Jess Search, director of Doc Society, in a statement.
“As an organization committed to filmmaker safety, we believe the registration requirement is a deeply troubling and oppressive development, forcing filmmakers to choose between free online expression and their own security,” said Search. “The U.S. government should be championing freedom of expression, not taking actions which will inhibit it.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
The groups’ members reported that with the requirement in effect, they were likely to reconsider traveling to the U.S., try to scrub their social media accounts of posts, or avoid sharing their views online.
Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with the Knight Institute, shared on Twitter the anguish the rule had caused her when she applied to renew her visa earlier this year.
Oliver Rivers, managing director of Doc Society, called the rule “bureaucratic intervention in freedom of speech.”
“It’s not just a small requirement on a visa form,” Rivers told The Intercept. “It’s very, very clear encroaching bureaucratic oppression, and I think you have to make a stand when you see something like this.”
While the lawsuit focuses on the rule’s effects on journalists, the requirement has already led to the temporary deportation of a Palestinian Harvard student who was denied entry to the the U.S. because of his Facebook friends’ social media posts.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute, called the requirement a clear violation of the First Amendment.
“The government simply has no legitimate interest in collecting this kind of sensitive information on this immense scale, and the First Amendment doesn’t permit it to do so,” said Jaffer.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Pierre Gasly was flooded with congratulatory messages after his shock win at Monza last weekend, but a call from one Sebastian Vettel carried a special meaning.
Gasly’s maiden win was a sweet revenge for the Frenchman who was demoted mid-season in 2019 to Red Bull’s ‘B’ team – Scuderia AlphaTauri.
However, the bulls’ top brass were the first to take their hats off to the young charger’s outstanding performance at Monza.
“Helmut congratulated me in Monza, he sent me a text, similar for Christian. They were both really happy with my success,” recounted Gasly.
But the 25-year-old was also welcomed to a very small club by Vettel.
“At Toro Rosso, as Seb mentioned to me on Monday when he called me, [we are] the only two to have won with this team.
“He won in 2008 and went to Red Bull to win four championships, as we know. I’m really happy to have joined him in this winner club for this team.
“It feels very special after winning that race,” he added.
“I guess [as] for every F1 driver it’s first of all a dream since I was a kid and probably when I look back from the moment I was six years old I started to watch Formula 1 and look at Michael [Schumacher] on the top step of the podium and telling my parents ‘ok, I want to be like this guy one day’.
“A lot of things have happened from six years old to now 24 years old and making this happen in Monza. A lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices and a lot of people on board helping me to make this happen.
“Every driver wants to live these kind of emotions and to live this moment one day was really particular and special for me. With AlphaTauri as a midfield team it’s not something you expect, I think it just made that win even more powerful and even more special.”
Gasly ‘ready’ to move back to Red Bull Racing
Gasly’s win was a form of motorsport poetic justice for the first Frenchman to win a Grand Prix since Olivier Panis at Monaco in 1996, and that wasn’t lost on Monza’s winner.
“After everything that happened over the last 18 months, I felt there were things which were not so fair and I wanted to make my answers on track,” said.
“I never came in the media [to vent his frustrations] because I felt like it wasn’t professional and, even though I did agree with a few things that were said.
“I just keep it for me and said ‘ok, just focus on your performance, focus on yourself, day after day, race after race’ and just try to improve myself as an athlete, as a person as a driver and put strong performances on the track.
“Obviously, the podium last year in Brazil was already amazing, we didn’t expect that, and then just a couple of months later to get my first win with AlphaTauri was probably the best answer.
“But at the moment I think it’s important to enjoy it with the team, AlphaTauri, and we’ll see what opportunities it brings for the future.”
Gallery: The beautiful wives and girlfriends of F1 drivers
Keep up to date with all the F1 news via Facebook and Twitter
Maryia Sadouskaya-Komlach is a Belarusian journalist and program coordinator at Free Press Unlimited.
WARSAW — Poland is trying to reinstate its role as chief promoter of democracy in Belarus, but its own clash with Brussels over democratic values is undermining its message.
Warsaw was an early supporter of the democratic movement and victims of repression in Belarus. Back in the mid-2000s, it initiated a university admission program for expelled Belarusian students and founded the Belarusian-language TV channel Belsat TV. Then Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski was one of the masterminds of the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy that included Belarus. He also visited Belarus back in 2010 to negotiate a deal on democratic reforms — though that ultimately failed.
But in more recent years — since the Law and Justice party came to power in 2015 — Poland has largely opted for a good-neighbor approach to Belarus.
While the regime in Minsk continued its policy of suppressing the opposition and the media, and did little to assuage international concerns about human rights, Poland appeared to have more pragmatic concerns. At a meeting in May, Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz discussed a range of issues with his Belarusian counterpart Uladzimir Makei, from new oil deals to the future of the so-called Eastern Partnership. That list apparently did not include democratic reforms or human rights.
In its efforts to help Belarus achieve greater independence from Russian energy supplies, Warsaw has also ignored the fact that Belarusians protesting against Russian influence were being fined and jailed, or that journalists of Belsat TV were denied government accreditation and fined. In February, Belsat TV’s Agnieszka Romaszewska warned that the Polish government was not doing enough to build relations with Belarus’ civil society.
For Warsaw, the silent approach has clear advantages. By 2018, Belarus had become Poland’s third-biggest trade partner among former Soviet states — not least due to the re-export of Polish-sanctioned apples to Russia. And in July, Belarusian strongman Alexander Lukashenko was among the first to congratulate Andrzej Duda following his reelection as president, expressing “hope for further strengthening of trust- and respect-based good neighborly relations and constructive cooperation.”
That conviviality disappeared quickly after Belarus’ disputed presidential election in August.
Just over a month after his warm-hearted greetings, Lukashenko accused Poland of running a special ops center near Warsaw in order to overthrow the Belarusian regime. On August 28, Lukashenko warned Lithuania and Poland that due to their hostility “now they will be shipping them [goods] by air or trading with Russia via the Baltic and Black Sea.”
Poland has become a vocal proponent of the EU’s decisive measures against the Belarusian authorities. Polish society, whose values are still deeply rooted in the Solidarity movement that brought about the end of communism, immediately recognized the historical parallels with its own struggle against authoritarian rule. Rather than let the opposition take a lead in responding to this crisis, the government started a massive campaign aimed at becoming the voice of the EU on Belarus.
Just a day after the August election in Belarus, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki appealed to European Council President Charles Michel to hold an extraordinary summit on Belarus. He later met with the Belarusian opposition in Warsaw. And before the EU could announce its own aid package, Poland pledged €11.3 million in support for civil society in Belarus. On Wednesday, Morawiecki met exiled Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya.
But Poland now faces two big new challenges. First, because of its own tussle with Brussels over the rule of law, Warsaw is now seen as a less credible proponent of democratic change in Minsk.
In 2017, the European Commission triggered Article 7 proceedings against Poland over a legal overhaul that Brussels said undermined the independence of the country’s judiciary and hence violated core EU values. And its own recent presidential election was disfigured by attacks on international media outlets and scapegoating of LGBTQ people, which intensified after Duda’s reelection.
That all makes it hard for Poland’s criticism of Belarus to stick. Polish radio RMF FM, quoting sources in Brussels, suggested that the very fact the idea for an extraordinary summit came from Warsaw had given it less traction in Brussels. It went ahead only after repeated calls from the Baltic states.
Second is the growing role of another EU neighbor, Lithuania, which has hosted many Belarusian pro-democracy initiatives in its capital Vilnius and spearheaded an all-Baltics sanctions package. Unlike Poland, Lithuania enjoys a good reputation within the EU on democracy and the rule of law. Vilnius was also much quicker to give shelter to endangered Belarusian activists, including Tikhanovskaya herself.
In an op-ed for POLITICO, Lithuania’s foreign minister, Linas Linkevičius, was blunt in his description of Lukashenko as a “former” president at the head of a “dictatorship.” Lithuania has also shown solidarity with the Belarusians in other ways, for example by mobilizing more than 50,000 citizens to join a solidarity chain from Vilnius to the Belarusian border.
After years of doing little, Poland now says it wants to help change Belarus for the better. But it is discovering that by pressing ahead with constitutional changes that deviate from EU core values, its influence beyond its borders is far less than it once was.
Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.) will hold his first campaign rally of the 2020 cycle in his home town of Brooklyn, New York, the senator announced Wednesday.
In a tweet, Sanders confirmed that he would kick off his 2020 bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on Saturday at Brooklyn College, in the New York City neighborhood where Sanders says he was “born and raised.”
“Let’s show Trump and the powerful special interests what they’re up against,” the senator tweeted Wednesday evening.
On Saturday I’m going back to Brooklyn, where I was born and raised, for the first rally of our campaign. Let’s show Trump and the powerful special interests what they’re up against. RSVP here to join us: https://t.co/4qCnhTxTN5
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 28, 2019
ADVERTISEMENT
Sanders’ 2016 bid for the presidency, initially considered a long-shot by many analysts, was punctuated by massive campaign rallies across the country featuring tens of thousands of supporters, and the senator saw some of the largest crowds of any 2016 candidate for president before his second-place finish to Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE.
The Vermont senator announced a second bid for the presidency earlier this month on Vermont Public Radio, calling President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE a “racist, a sexist, [and] a homophobe” while vowing to build on the success of his 2016 run.
“[W]hat I promise to do is, as I go around the country, is to take the values that all of us in Vermont are proud of — a belief in justice, in community, in grass-roots politics, in town meetings — that’s what I’m going to carry all over this country,” Sanders said.
“We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it’s time to move that revolution forward,” he added at the time.
Several of Sanders’ 2016 advisers recently left his 2020 campaign, citing creative differences, while the senator enjoyed a massive $6 million small-donor fundraising haul in the 24 hours following his campaign announcement.
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) on Sunday sought to tamp down concerns that his age could be an issue if he officially launches a 2020 bid for the White House, stating that he has more experience in government than President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE.
“I have more years of government experience under my belt than the president,” Buttigieg, 37, said at a CNN presidential town hall in Austin, Texas.
ADVERTISEMENT
“That’s a low bar. I know that. I also have had more years of executive government experience than the vice president.”
Buttigieg was first elected mayor of South Bend in 2011, becoming the youngest-ever mayor of a U.S. city with at least 100,000 residents.
Before winning the 2016 election, Trump had not held an elected position. Pence served as the governor of Indiana between 2013 and 2017.
Buttigieg also highlighted his experience in the military as a qualification for being president.
He said that he has “more military experience than anybody to walk into that office on day one since George H.W. Bush.”
“I get I’m the young guy in the conversation, but experience is what qualifies me to have a seat at this table.”
Democratic presidential hopeful and entrepreneur Andrew Yang drew a crowd of about 3,000 people at a campaign rally in San Francisco on Monday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Yang, of New York City, spoke to the crowd about his proposal for a universal basic income, a $1,000-a-month “freedom dividend” for every American adult.
ADVERTISEMENT
“What it means is that kids get better food, their nutrition gets better, they get healthier,” he said. “What it means is that kids have a better chance to learn and graduate from school at higher levels, it means that all of us have our relationships improve a bit because our stress levels go down.”
He also discussed the dangers of artificial intelligence and robots stealing jobs.
Yang’s campaign has raised $350,000 from 66,000 donors. Polls show him as the top choice for about 1 percent of Democratic voters.
Yang is one of many contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination and faces an uphill battle in the primary.
He is facing candidates with a much higher profile and whose campaigns are heavily funded, including Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.), Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook McEnany says Juneteenth is a very ‘meaningful’ day to Trump MORE (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Beto O’RourkeBeto O’RourkeBiden will help close out Texas Democrats’ virtual convention: report O’Rourke on Texas reopening: ‘Dangerous, dumb and weak’ Parties gear up for battle over Texas state House MORE (D-Texas).
Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook MORE is also largely expected to join the race for the chance to unseat President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE.
Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon predicted Wednesday that Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE was looking for a way to enter the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary.
In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Bannon said that Clinton was “waiting” for the call from members of her party before launching a third bid for the presidency. His remarks come despite Clinton’s assurance earlier this month that she was not seeking another run for the White House in 2020.
“Secretary Clinton has said that she’s not running, but you know, she’s in the bullpen waiting for the call,” Bannon said.
ADVERTISEMENT
“I believe, if you go through the gauntlet this summer, you start the Democratic primary, by the fall of next year if there’s not a candidate that’s kind of breaking out of the pack and looks like they can take on Trump … because the No. 1 thing for the Democrats is not policy right now … the No. 1 thing for the Democrats is beating Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE,” he continued.
“And they’re going to fall in line with whoever they think can beat Donald Trump,” Bannon added, before predicting that no Democrat would be successful in unseating the president in next year’s elections.
“I don’t see anyone in this field right now taking on Donald Trump,” he said.
Steve BannonStephen (Steve) Kevin BannonFormer Trump adviser Jason Miller to join reelection campaign GOP lawmaker calls on Senate to confirm Michael Pack as head of US media agency Steve Bannon is winning MORE predicts possible 2020 presidential candidate Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook MORE would peak the day he announced, adding that Hillary Clinton will be “in the bullpen waiting,” ready to run if there is not a candidate breaking out of the Democratic pack by autumn 2019 https://t.co/iKhnK39jm5 pic.twitter.com/hdK001CTrh
— CNN (@CNN) March 28, 2019
Clinton told a local news station earlier this month that she was not planning to run for president in 2020 while adding that she was not “going anywhere,” and would remain a vocal force on the left.
“I want to be sure that people understand I’m going to keep speaking out,” Clinton told News 12 Westchester. “I’m not going anywhere. What’s at stake in our country, the kinds of things that are happening right now are deeply troubling to me.”
“We’ve gotten not just polarized,” she added. “We’ve gotten into, really, opposing camps unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my adult life.”
Clinton has met with several Democrats in the crowded 2020 field, including Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Democrats demand Republican leaders examine election challenges after Georgia voting chaos Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk MORE (Minn.) and Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook McEnany says Juneteenth is a very ‘meaningful’ day to Trump MORE (Calif.). Her old rival from the 2016 Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.), has already announced his own bid for the White House.
The Urban Institute, a putatively left-leaning think tank, released a comprehensive study Wednesday that media outlets immediately seized upon as evidence that the Medicare for All proposal authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders would increase total U.S. healthcare costs by $7 trillion over the next decade.
The problem, as Matt Bruenig of the left-wing People’s Policy Project pointed out Wednesday, is that the Urban Institute assessed the cost of its own made-up version of single-payer, not the 100-page Medicare for All bill Sanders introduced in April.
“The Urban plan uses hospital reimbursement rates that are 15 percent higher than the rates in the M4A legislation, meaning that its cost estimates are much higher than the actual costs of M4A,” wrote Bruenig. “Urban is certainly welcome to put forward any health plans they can think of and score them to the best of their ability. But it is important for media to understand that this is Urban’s single-payer plan, not the Medicare for All plan supported by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and many other congressional Democrats.”
“If every major industrialized nation on Earth can make healthcare a right to all and achieve better healthcare outcomes while spending far less per person than we do, it is absurd to suggest that the United States of America cannot do the same.” —Warren Gunnels, senior adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders
Many mainstream and corporate media outlets, however, did not heed Bruenig’s warning.
On Wednesday morning, CNN, Axios, the Associated Press, the Washington Examiner, and other outlets published articles conflating the Urban Institute’s contrived “Single-Payer Enhanced” plan with Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation.
CNN‘s Tami Luhby reported that “a new Urban Institute study shows that the nation’s overall healthcare spending is expected to rise roughly $7 trillion to $59 trillion over a decade if Medicare for All goes into effect.” Luhby went on to claim that “a big hike in taxes” would be required to finance Medicare for All.
The Washington Examiner, a right-wing publication, put the inflated $59 trillion figure in its headline, which also declared: “Analysis finds health spending would rise, not fall, under ‘Medicare for All.'”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
But as Breunig pointed out, “there are reports that have attempted to score Medicare for All as it is actually written, with the most prominent being the one produced by Charles Blahous at the right-wing Mercatus Center” last July.
“That report found that M4A would reduce national health expenditures by $2 trillion in its first decade,” noted Bruenig, who was the first to highlight that finding after the Mercatus Center buried the figure.
As Common Dreams reported, media outlets effectively did the Mercatus Center’s dirty work by blasting out its finding that Medicare for All would increase federal healthcare spending by $32.6 trillion while ignoring the $2 trillion in overall cost savings.
A separate study published last November by researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) estimated that Sanders’ Medicare for All Act of 2017 would have saved the U.S. $5.1 trillion over a decade while providing comprehensive healthcare to all.
Warren Gunnels, senior adviser to Sanders, told Common Dreams in response to the Urban Institute analysis that the United States “currently spends over twice as much for healthcare as the average developed country.”
“If every major industrialized nation on Earth can make healthcare a right to all and achieve better healthcare outcomes while spending far less per person than we do,” said Gunnels, “it is absurd to suggest that the United States of America cannot do the same.”
Robert Pollin, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-director of PERI, wrote in an open letter to Sanders earlier this month that he is “confident” that “the net impact of Medicare for All based on your staff proposal will be to generate substantial savings in healthcare costs for most businesses and all but the most affluent U.S. households.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Oklahoma voters’ approval of a referendum in 2016 allowed for nearly 500 inmates to walk free on Monday from the state’s massive prison system—the largest single-day commutation in U.S. history.
Four hundred and sixty-two people had their sentences commuted as a result of Question 780, which asked voters if they approved of recategorizing many felonies, including drug possession and minor property crimes, as misdemeanors. The referendum passed by a 16 percent margin.
This year, state lawmakers also made the new law retroactive and allowed parole boards to quickly review many inmates’ cases. A total of 527 sentences were commuted; 65 people will also be released early at a later date.
Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the historic commutation on Monday a “step forward in the fight to end mass incarceration.”
Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU in Oklahoma, noted the significance of Oklahoma voters’ call for reforms to the criminal justice system.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“From the 30,000-foot view, the criminal justice landscape is light-years ahead of where it was three or four years ago,” Kiesel told the Washington Post. “It would have been impossible before State Question 780 passed in Oklahoma; that signaled to lawmakers there was an appetite for reform.”
German Lopez, a journalist at Vox, wrote that the fact that there appears to be little outcry over the release of nearly 500 inmates “is probably good—a sign of how far criminal justice reform has come.”
In addition to the crime reclassifications, the state is offering new resources to inmates to assist them with re-entry into society following their sentences. Former prisoners will be given a state-issued ID to help them secure housing and work, and will be connected with housing and counseling services.
Udi Ofer, director of the ACLU’s justice division, emphasized that with more than 26,000 Oklahomans still living in the state’s prison system, more work needs to be done regarding sentencing laws.
“Oklahoma will never substantially reduce its prison population until it tackles sentencing enhancements,” Ofer told the New York Times.
Legislators are currently weighing reforms that end long sentences for repeat offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes, shorten drug sentences, and limit the use of cash bail.
The state’s Pardon and Parole Board is expected to commute sentences for nearly 1,000 people as a result of the law making the referendum retroactive. More than 800 people applied for commutation on Friday, when the new law went into effect.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new analysis from travel website Champion Traveler shows how the burgeoning space tourism industry favored by many U.S. billionaires could severely worsen the planetary climate crisis by emissions that, in one rocket launch, are equal to nearly 400 transatlantic flights.
While the number of rockets blasting off from Earth’s surface to the stratosphere—and beyond—are still low, recent reporting indicates there is a desire on the part of space tourism and shipping company SpaceX head Elon Musk to increase that number.
“As rocket launches become more common and space tourism accelerates in you the reader’s lifetime, as most experts predict, companies such as SpaceX will need to consider the environmental impact of their launches at scale,” wrote Champion Traveler.
The travel company’s researchers ran the data and found that:
The SpaceX Falcon 9 B burns 29,600 gallons (112,184 Kg) of highly refined kerosene
3.0 Kg of CO2 goes into the atmosphere per Kg of Kerosene burned
112,184 Kg x 3 Kg / CO2 = roughly 336,552 Kg of CO2 per Falcon 9 launch
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Champion Traveler compared the data to other sources of travel emissions and found that one SpaceX rocket flight, expelling 336.5 kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere, is equal to 395 one-way transatlantic flights at about 850 kilograms of CO2 on a roundtrip flight or driving 73 cars for one year, with each emitting 4,600 kilograms of CO2.
Musk’s desire for an uptick in spaceflights is part of the billionaire’s scheme to colonize Mars, according to Mic:
It’s not just SpaceX—as Champion Traveler reports, “between Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, NASA, and other, emerging non-US space agencies, the number of rocket launches will only increase each year.”
With more rockets likely to enter the skies in recent decades, emissions will also increase if an alternative fuel source is not found.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.