Is there a provision in Biden's climate plan to reduce red meat consumption by 90%?
On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are
In 2014 and 2015, two people associated with an anti-abortion organization called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, posed as fetal researchers for a fake company called Biomax in order to gain entry to National Abortion Federation conventions. The pair's goal was to gather evidence that Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, were selling tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research. (Although it is unlawful to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, it is legal for patients to donate extracted material for medical research, and for providers to receive reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue as part of the donation process.) The CMP subsequently posted videos online which they claimed documented Planned Parenthood officials offering to illegally sell fetal tissue for profit, while Planned Parenthood maintained the videos were deceptively edited and captured only discussion related to legal reimbursements for tissue donation procedures. videos sell fetal tissue A text meme circulated during the 2020 presidential campaign held that California Attorney General Kamala Harris (who by 2020 was a U.S. senator and a Democratic vice presidential candidate) had unfairly prosecuted the CMP "journalists," while taking no action against Planned Parenthood for "selling aborted baby parts":   That meme was both inaccurate and misleading. It is true that no charges were brought against Planned Parenthood in California  for the sound reason that Planned Parenthood was investigated by multiple states  but none of them found sufficient evidence to support a prosecution over claims that the organization had unlawfully sold (or offered to sell) human fetal tissue. As NPR reported, by the end of 2015, 12 different states had opened investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," and none of them turned up evidence of wrongdoing by that organization. (Another eight states, including California, decided not to pursue similar investigations.) reported On the other hand, after Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked the district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in 2015, a grand jury there took no action against Planned Parenthood, but did find sufficient evidence to indict Daleiden and Merritt on felony charges (which were later dropped) of tampering with government records over their use of fake identification. indict In late 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in a civil lawsuit filed by that organization, rejecting arguments that Daleiden and Merritt were simply acting as investigative journalists, and ordering Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress, and others, to pay Planned Parenthood $2.3 million in damages for violating federal and state laws by trespassing on private property and secretly recording video of others without their consent. lawsuit In March 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged in California with 15 counts of violating state invasion of privacy laws that prohibit the recording of conversations without consent. A Superior Court judge dismissed some of those criminal charges, but another count was subsequently added in July, and several criminal counts remain current as of September 2020. added remain current Although then-Attorney General Harris was involved with the initial investigation of Daleiden and Merritt, she had left that office to take her seat in the U.S. Senate two months before charges were first brought against the pair by her successor, Xavier Becerra. Kurtzleben, Danielle.  "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. The [Davis] Vanguard.  "Criminal Case against Anti-Abortion Activists David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt to Move Forward."
  31 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "Case To Go Forward Against Two Antiabortion Activists Who Recorded Conversations."
  San Francisco Chronicle.  29 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "California Files More Charges Against Antiabortion Activists."
  SFGate.  7 July 2017. Fernandez, Manny,  "Last Charges Dropped Against Abortion Foes in Making of Planned Parenthood Video."
  The New York Times.  26 July 2016. Williams, Juliet.  "Planned Parenthood Awarded $2.3 Million for Secret Videos."
  Associated Press.  15 November 2019. Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."   [New York] Daily News.  14 September 1999  (p. 5).     Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). Corporate profits have been rising. The Commerce Department reported that corporate profits from current production increased 21.4 percent in 2006 and were up 12.5 percent in 2005. CEO pay has also gone up. A Forbes report in May 2007 said chief executives of the nation's 500 largest companies got a 38 percent raise in 2006, on top of a 6 percent hike in 2005 and a 54 percent raise in 2004. And Clinton is right that average wages have been flat. Adjusted for inflation, median family income has been flat since 2001, hovering around $54,000, according to government statistics. Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book,Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support ourselves or contribute financially to our familys bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say working woman as if she were an anomaly. We never say working man. There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to hone in on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited2013 Pew Research Center reportthat looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the familys income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. Thats quadruple what it was in 1960  11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't have kids. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report  especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. And the households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progressthat had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015. And 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though womens share of the labor forcegrew dramaticallythroughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of alack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling Ivanka Trump said, 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the familys income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True. On a scale of politically controversial topics, airline tickets might rank near the bottom, perhaps somewhere just above Roberts Rules of Order and a quorum call.And yet plane tickets have been part of some curious claims taken on by PolitiFact: Every time you buy an airline ticket, the federal government runs a background check on you -- PolitiFact Texas:Mostly False You can use food stamps for a plane ticket to go to Hawaii -- PolitiFact National:Pants on Fire Now coming down the runway is a claim byGary Kelly, chief executive officer of Dallas-based Southwest Airlines. Southwest carries themost domestic passengersin the U.S. and themost passengersat Milwaukees Mitchell International Airport.Kelly made his statement in a column he wrote for the February 2013 issues of the in-flight magazines of Southwest and of AirTran Airways, which Southwestacquiredin 2011.Taxes and fees amount to about 20 percent of a typical $300 round-trip domestic ticket, he stated. Thats higher than taxes on products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.With spring break around the corner, and alcohol, tobacco and firearms always in season, lets see if Kellys claim takes flight.Cost of an airline ticketKellys opinion column focused on federal taxes on airline tickets and other products. His source for the taxes on an airline ticket isAirlines for America, the trade group that advocates for the airline industry. It spent $6.37 million in federal lobbying in 2012,accordingto the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org.In December 2012, Airlines for Americaannounced detailsof a campaign it would undertake in 2013 to persuade lawmakers to reduce federal taxes on airlines and take other steps to help the industry.Just how high are those taxes?Southwest Airlines spokesman Brad Hawkins usedfiguresprovided by Airlines for America to give a breakdown of the four major federal taxes and fees on a ticket with a base price of $300. His example includes one connecting flight each way -- in other words, a ticket that includes two flights on the departure segment of the trip and two flights on the return. Based on Hawkins calculations, the $66.10 equals 22 percent of the cost of the $300 ticket, exceeding the 20 percent that Kelly claimed.As for the size of the taxes and fees, we found a Federal Aviation Administrationdocumentconfirming the excise tax and segment fee amounts; theyhelp fundthe FAA, which coordinates air traffic control and other aspects of the aviation system. (Anexcise taxis somewhat like a sales tax, in that it is paid on a purchase, but its often included in the purchase price. )Another FAAdocumentconfirms the passenger facility charge, which is collected by public agencies that run commercial airports and is used for FAA-approved projects at the airports. And a Transportation Security Administrationdocumentconfirms the Sept. 11 fee, which helps fund the TSA.We ran Kellys statement and his itinerary by Joakim Karlsson, a researcher with theAirline Ticket Tax Projectat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the project studies ticket taxes and user fees added directly to airline tickets. He called Kellys statement mathematically correct, but fundamentally misleading.Karlsson noted that fares are usually quoted with taxes and fees included. So, a $300 ticket would include a base fare of about $239.Karlsson calculated that would trigger $61 in taxes and fees, which would still amount to 20 percent of the ticket cost, the same amount Kelly claimed.But more importantly, Karlsson said, the sample ticket that Kelly uses is not typical: So, a $418 non-stop ticket would include $54 in taxes and fees, or just under 15 percent of the total. (The taxes and fees in Kellys $300 ticket example, if the trip were non-stop, also would equal just under 15 percent. )That means the first part of Kellys claim is accurate, but leaves out important details.Taxes and fees on other productsAs for the second part of Kellys statement, the Southwest Airlines spokesman cited a 2011opinion columninThe Wall Street Journalby the chief executive officer of Airlines for America, the airlines trade group. The column argued that the taxes paid by airlines are at the same excessive levels as sin taxes imposed on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.But the column provided no figures to show how the various tax rates compare.We found the followingfiguresfrom the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a division of the Department of Treasury. They represent only the federal taxes on these products. Some brands of beer cost more than others, some wine costs more in one part of the country than another, buying in bulk costs less, etc.But, to consider some examples, if a: None of this takes into account state and local taxes on the various products, but Kellys claim focuses on federal taxes.So, the tax rate on an airline ticket -- whether its 20 percent, as in the example Kelly cited, or the more typical 15 percent as cited by the MIT program -- is generally higher than the federal tax rates on the other products Kelly cited.One might argue that taxes and fees on airline tickets, which help fund aviation operations, are fundamentally different from sin taxes on things like cigarettes, which are meant to hold down consumption. But thats not an argument central to this claim.Our ratingKelly said: Taxes and fees amount to about 20 percent of a typical $300 round-trip domestic ticket. Thats higher than taxes on products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.The first part of the claim is technically accurate, but misleading, given that the tax rate on a typical flight -- which costs more than $300 and doesnt include connecting flights -- is 15 percent. The second part of the claim, although it doesnt take into account price variations on various products, appears generally accurate.On balance, since the thrust of the claim was which had more taxes and which had less, we rate the statement Mostly True. An ambitious effort by a group of African countries to tackle the effects of climate change and desertification has been in the works since 2007. The Great Green Wall (GGW) initiative plans to have trees extend like a belt across the Sahel region which is at the base of the Sahara, in order to prevent the expansion of the desert through climate change. since 2007 According to a meme shared with us by our readers, more than 20 African countries are a part of this effort, and the wall of trees, the meme says, will spread 7,000 km across the continent from coast to coast.      This meme is largely true, though the length of the GGW varies, as the project itself is far from being completed. According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the project aims to restore Africas degraded landscapes and transform millions of lives in one of the worlds poorest regions, the Sahel. Once complete, the Wall will be the largest living structure on the planet  an 8,000 km natural wonder of the world stretching across the entire width of the continent. According The project aims to have the "wall" extend from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in the east, by 2030. The official website for the GGW details the reason for all their efforts: extend official website The catalyst for the Great Green Wall is the daily impact of desertification and climate change that is undermining the futures of millions of communities across Africa's Sahel region. Since the 1970s, the Sahel has been heavily affected by recurrent periods of drought. These droughts have threatened the livelihoods and future of entire populations across the region. The lack of rain has led to the disappearance of livestock and the destruction of cereal crops. The great famines that rocked the Sub-Saharan region in the 80s each affected millions of people. In addition, the high population growth rate is increasing demand for food and pressure to gain access to other natural resources which are the basis for livelihoods and the survival of the rural population. Millions of people  particularly rural youth  are currently facing an uncertain future due to the lack of decent rural jobs and continuous loss of livelihoods due to land degradation and falling yields. But according to The Associated Press, since the projects inception in 2007, millions of the planted trees have died due to diminishing rains and rising temperatures. Only 4% of the projects original goal has been met and around $43 billion dollars is needed to complete it. Given the challenges facing them, the focus of the project has also shifted from planting just a wall of trees to a mosaic of smaller and more durable projects that emphasize community-focused solutions that support agriculture and prevent desertification. Associated Press mosaic The GGW Accelerator, announced in January 2021, detailed these changes: GGW Accelerator The Great Green Wall Initiative has evolved from its initial focus on tree planting towards a comprehensive rural development initiative aiming to transform the lives of Sahelian populations by creating a mosaic of green and productive landscapes across 11 countries (Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti) .  Progress has been achieved into the second decade of the initiative, with almost 18 million hectares of degraded lands restored and 350.000 jobs created across the Sahel and the Great Green Wall countries.  The Accelerator also highlighted additional challenges they encountered in the process of creating the GGW which included insufficient coordination, exchange and flow of information at the regional and national level, weak organizational structures, and a lack of consideration in national environmental priorities. Accelerator Some of the changes include planting orchards and circular gardens where large trees strategically protect smaller ones. A number of these have been thriving in Senegals portion of the GGW.  include According to GGWs official website, there have been a number of successes. Senegal planted around 12 million drought resistant trees in less than a decade, while 5 million hectares of degraded land was restored in Nigeria, and 15 million hectares in Ethiopia. A November 2021 report in the Nature Sustainability journal assessed the economic impact of the program and concluded that it was economically worthwhile: website November 2021 The Great Green Wall programme is a colossal initiative to restore 100 million hectares of degraded ecosystems across 11 countries in the region [...] We evaluated the economic costs and benefits of future land restoration projects under this programme. We applied different scenarios that account for both market-priced and non-market benefits from restored ecosystems and consider the heterogeneity of local decision-making contexts in terms of investment planning horizons, discount rates, and the time needed for the restored ecosystems to start yielding their benefits in full. The results show that every US dollar invested into land restoration yields on average US$1.2 under the base scenario, ranging from US$1.1 to US$4.4 across the scenarios. At most, ten years are needed for land restoration activities to break even from the social perspective, accounting for both market-priced and non-market ecosystem benefits. To fund all proposed land restoration activities, an investment of US$44 billion is needed under the base scenario (US$1870 billion across scenarios).  The report added that Violent conflicts in the Sahel are estimated to reduce the accessibility to these degraded ecosystems from 27.9 million hectares to 14.1 million hectares.  While originally only 11 countries were a part of the effort, today there are more than 20 African nations involved. You can learn more about the impact and current projects here, and in this video: 20 African nations  Given that the focus of the GGW has evolved beyond just planting trees, and it is still an effort in progress, we rate this claim as true.  Africas Great Green Wall Shifts Focus to Hold off Desert. Associated Press, 13 Nov. 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/13/africa-great-green-wall-521292. Accessed 29 Nov. 2021. Growing a World Wonder. Great Green Wall, https://www.greatgreenwall.org. Accessed 29 Nov. 2021. Mirzabaev, A., Sacande, M., Motlagh, F. et al. "Economic efficiency and targeting of the African Great Green Wall." Nature Sustainability, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00801-8. Accessed 29 Nov. 2021. The Great Green Wall Initiative | UNCCD. https://www.unccd.int/actions/great-green-wall-initiative. Accessed 29 Nov. 2021. The Women's March on Washington event that took place on 21 January 2017 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers, drawing approximately 500,000 participants in Washington, D.C., and perhaps two million more in other cities across the U.S. and around the world. cities Not long after the marches concluded, word spread that march organizers were asking attendees to text "COUNT ME" to 89800 in order for their presence at that event to be tallied: If you participated in a #WomensMarch in any city anywhere, or even virtually, text COUNT ME to 89800! pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru #WomensMarch pic.twitter.com/ZY32GWU5Ru  Sriya Sarkar (@sriyasarkar7) January 23, 2017 January 23, 2017 Various versions of the exhortation were shared by celebrities as well as satellite Women's March events, some of them subsequently deleted:  satellite  Adding to the confusing the matter was a tweet published and then deleted by the official Women's March account, disavowing the "text 89800" message:   The Seattle Privacy Coalition took note of the viral message and expressed reservations about its legitimacy:  Seattle Privacy Coalition Please don't text to 89800 or any other number to confirm your participation in Womxn's March or any other: https://t.co/0oQq6cODox  Seattle Privacy (@SeattlePrivacy) January 23, 2017 https://t.co/0oQq6cODox January 23, 2017  That tweet linked to marketing communications company TxtWire's "89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions" page, which is the most detailed information we've been able to locate about the texting 89800 program so far: page Program DescriptionThe program sends subscribers alerts regarding promotions, coupons, and time sensitive deals from local businesses. To opt-in, Text DEALMEIN to 89800. 8 msgs/mo. Msg&data rates may apply. To opt-out, Text STOP to 89800. An opt-out confirmation message will be sent back to you. To request support, Text HELP to 89800 or email us at support@txtwire.com. The effort appears to be spearheaded by the It's Time Network, a group professing to be an "inclusive community of people and organizations working collaboratively to accelerate the full empowerment of women and girls in order to achieve gender equity, evolve democracy and build fair economies that regenerate the Earth." That organization began promoting the "text 89800" initiative on 21 January 2017: promoting Calling all marchers! Text COUNT ME to 89800 to be counted as a #WomensMarch participant & share with friends. @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke #WomensMarch @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/HJTMyWbFke  It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 21, 2017 January 21, 2017 In a subsequent series of tweets, the group acknowledged that the effort was undertaken independently by the It's Time Network and not specifically by Women's March organizers:  @DoNotGoGently We organized the count in support of march organizers. Please find more information here: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD  It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @DoNotGoGently https://t.co/QiEqejncJD January 22, 2017  @ptexpat All data will be given to march organizers -- we set the count up as a service to support their efforts: https://t.co/QiEqejncJD @ptexpat https://t.co/QiEqejncJD  It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush That was not our intention & we apologize for the confusion. We set up the count in support of march organizers' efforts.  It's Time Network (@ItsTimeNetwork) January 22, 2017 @gotagirlcrush January 22, 2017  We have been unable to locate any march organizers officially endorsing the "text COUNT ME to 89800" message campaign. Although some satellite marches retweeted information about the program, details such as who was attempting to collect a headcount and for what purposes remained unclear. We have contacted the official Women's March via e-mail and social media to inquire about the text campaign but have not yet received a response. It's Time Network.  "Women's March on Washington."
  Accessed 23 January 2017. TxtWire.  "89800 Mobile Terms & Conditions."
  Accessed 23 January 2017. In a discussion of the economy during the Aug. 29, 2010, edition of ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile addressed the plight of the long-term unemployed.She said that 45 percent of those who've been unemployed, they've been unemployed for six months or longer. They desperately need the skills and the tools to get back into the workplace.We thought we'd check to see if Brazile was right.We turned to the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal agency that calculates the national unemployment rate as well as a host of other labor-related statistics.We found two relevant numbers that are published monthly: the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed Americans age 16 and over, and the subset of that group that has been unemployed for at least 27 weeks, or a little over six months. We divided the second number by the first for each month of the Obama presidency -- January 2009 to July 2010. That produced the percentage at any given time of all unemployed workers who have been unemployed for more than six months.Brazile is on solid ground when assessing the past three months. The percentage of unemployed workers who were jobless for more than six months was 45 percent in May 2010, 46 percent in June 2010 and 45 percent in July 2010.But for most of the Obama presidency, the ratio was lower. It climbed slowly, starting at 23 percent in January 2009. It hit 30 percent in June 2009 and 40 percent in December 2009 before cracking 45 percent in May 2010.Brazile's only error here was to use the wrong verb tense. The way she phrased it suggested that 45 percent of those whohave beenunemployed during the current recession were unemployed for at least six months. That's actually been true only for the past three months -- that is, 17 months into the Obama presidency and 32 months into the recession. A more accurate way of phrasing it would have been 45 percent of thosewho are nowunemployed, they've been unemployed for six months or longer.Of course, Brazile's grammatical slip-up should not undercut the seriousness of the economic statistic she's citing. Her point about the long-term unemployed is generally accurate even if her encapsulation of it is a little misleading. On balance, then, we rate her statement Mostly True. On 20 January 2017, a photograph purportedly showing a highway sign in Maryland urging drivers to "consider Canada" in avoiding Inauguration Day traffic was widely circulated on social media:  This image was just a prank, however, a digitally manipulated version of a more mundane image. The Maryland State Highway Administration published a genuine photograph of the sign on Interstate 270 showing that it actually read "Consider Metro": published  State Highway Administration spokesman Charlie Gischlar told the Baltimore Sunthat he sent some workers out to the site after viewing the viral image and confirmed that the words "Consider Canada" did actually appear on the traffic sign: "Whoever did it, though, Ihave to give them credit  it looks real." confirmed We also reached out to the Maryland State Highway Administration to confirm that the sign never read "consider Canada": @danieljevon No it did not @danieljevon  MD State Highway Adm (@MDSHA) January 20, 2017 January 20, 2017  Dance, Scott.  "Viral image of 'Consider Canada' highway sign a hoax, SHA says."
  Baltimore Sun.  20 January 2017. Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012