Latest news with #LCAs
CBC
2 days ago
- Health
- CBC
Afghan-Canadian combat advisers launch discrimination suit against Department of National Defence
Former military language and cultural advisers — who at times carried out some of the most difficult and dangerous assignments of Canada's war in Afghanistan — are now suing the federal government for discrimination over the alleged failure to properly train and take care of them following their service alongside combat troops, CBC News has learned. A statement of claim was filed on May 30 in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of 30 of the men — Canadian citizens of Afghan origin — who were recruited by the Defence Department to help the army on the ground during the brutal Kandahar campaign. The federal government was served notice of the $50 million discrimination suit last Thursday. Known by the acronym LCAs, the advisers were tasked with helping commanders and troops overcome language and cultural barriers. But they also conducted dangerous intelligence gathering on the Taliban, warned of attacks and eavesdropped on insurgent communications. They were civilians, not soldiers. Many of them returned to Canada injured and broken, only to be denied care by the federal government because their contracts with the Defence Department ended after their time overseas and their health concerns, including post-traumatic stress disorder, emerged afterward. "After years of dedicated service to their country, LCAs were abandoned in the community," said the court filing, which noted that many of them had secret clearance and could not discuss the operations in which they had been involved. Department 'actively frustrated and undermined' cases, suit claims The crux of the discrimination claim is that the advisers "were recruited based on their identities as Muslim Canadians of Afghan descent and were subjected to the same risks and hazards" as soldiers, yet, "Canada deprived LCAs of the same benefits and supports it provides to soldiers in recognition of these risks and hazards of war." The former advisers also claim they were discriminated against by not being given adequate pre-deployment training to prepare for the hazards of combat. CBC News has followed the plight of the men since 2019, and their case has also been championed by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman's office. The Defence Department, in response to media stories and watchdog pressure, sent the advisers' cases to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), which is where most Defence Department cases involving civilian injury end up. The lawsuit claims the Defence Department "actively frustrated and undermined" the cases of the advisers by the "withholding of critical information from the WSIB and its imposition of confidentiality obligations." The actions, the court filing says, limited the ability of the LCAs to disclose information and that contributed to the rejection of most of their serious injury claims. The federal government has not responded to the claims in the court challenge. 'I would do it again and again' One of the former advisers, Jamail Jushan, says it's been a disheartening journey. "We were forgotten — ignored," Jushan told CBC News in an interview, adding that everyone he and fellow LCAs have dealt with have been sympathetic, but unmoved. "They appreciated our work, they appreciated our mission, but they paid lip service and there was no action." Jushan was among a handful of former Afghan advisers who demonstrated in front of Parliament on Remembrance Day last year, hoping to draw attention to their plight. Despite feeling ignored and suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, Jushan says that if someone asked him to serve again, he would. "I would do it again and again," Jushan said. "I am sick, but if something happened to Canada, this is my country, I will defend these people. I will defend this country. I sacrificed myself. I sacrificed my family. I sacrificed everything. I love this country." He said Canada gave him a home and a sense of belonging before the war. Abdul Hamidi, another adviser, said he's not so sure he would have gone had he known what it was going to be like and how he would be treated. "I'm a Canadian man. I'm a human being. I am one of you," said Hamidi, who was given a partial disability assessment, though it doesn't cover all of his injuries. "There's nothing different between us. So if you brought me to this level you have to answer me." Hamidi says that in terms of experiences and injuries, the only difference between him and those he advised in Afghanistan is that they carried the title of soldier. WATCH | Advisers who worked with Canadian Forces in Afghanistan fight for benefts: Afghan Canadians who worked with military fight for recognition, benefits 7 months ago Duration 2:10 Afghan Canadians who worked with the military as interpreters and cultural advisers during the war say they have been ignored by the federal government and are still fighting for the same recognition and health benefits as the soldiers they served beside. No compensation despite ombudsman recommendation Emma Phillips, one of the lawyers who filed the Charter discrimination case, says the military has publicly acknowledged the crucial role the men played in the Kandahar campaign, but has turned its back on them. The Canadian Forces Ombudsman's office has recommended that the advisers be granted a special compensation package, similar to one handed out for cadets injured in an accidental grenade explosion in the 1970s. In that case, cadets were eligible for $42,000 with an additional financial award going up to $310,000 for those seriously injured. The Defence Department has so far refused to budge. Phillips says the government's ongoing refusal to grant the advisers compensation is "a tragedy, really." An investigation by the ombudsman six years ago found that care for the civilian contractors during the war was an afterthought. Before the beginning of major combat operations in 2006, the department briefly considered implementing a policy to limit the duration and scope of civilian deployments. But the idea was inexplicably dropped, and it wasn't until 2007 that a temporary directive was drafted. The ombudsman's 2019 investigation found that the order was not implemented until November 2011 — four months after Canadian troops had withdrawn from fighting the Taliban.
Forbes
15-05-2025
- Automotive
- Forbes
Polestar's Luxury Electric SUV Has Lower Lifetime Environmental Impact Than Tiny Petrol Car
Meeting climate goals will require a substantial cut in car mileage achieved through road space reallocation, parking levies, road user charging, and massively increased investment in public transit and active travel infrastructures. That caveat aside, it's also essential that the pared-back car fleet goes all-electric. Petrol-powered cars should be phased out in favor of electric vehicles (EVs), and it's now no longer true that a tiny car with an internal combustion engine (ICE) will have lower lifetime emissions, including the carbon emitted during manufacture, than a large luxury EV. EVs may not have tailpipe emissions, but the carbon emitted during their manufacture, including the sourcing of the minerals for their heavy batteries, is still substantial. However, some auto manufacturers are working hard to reduce the carbon footprint of their vehicles. Using Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), these manufacturers publish cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave statistics. The cradle-to-gate measurement is an assessment of a partial product life cycle from resource extraction to the factory gate before it is transported to the consumer. Cradle-to-grave measurements add mileage of use, and the ease or otherwise of dismantling for scrap, including recycling or reusing the battery. Most EV batteries will outlast the vehicles they were installed in, and even then, they have a worthwhile second life, perhaps as grid storage, before they need to be stripped down for recycling. Confusingly, car companies don't stick to the same LCA benchmarks. For instance, while EV makers Rivian and Tesla list their vehicle's CO2 emissions in grams per mile driven over the car's lifetime, Rivian assumes their vehicles have a 155,000-mile lifespan while Tesla has typical lifetime usage of 200,000 miles, meaning Tesla has 45,000 more miles to spread their emissions over, lowering their emissions per mile. Polestar—which started life in 2005 as the brand name for a Volvo-tuning, gasoline-powered Swedish motorsports team, then transformed into an EV marque when Volvo bought the team 10 years later and is now owned by EV maker Geely of China—is arguably the world's most transparent auto maker. Since 2020, the company has published annual full-disclosure sustainability reports, publishing emissions data and the full Life Cycle Assessment for its cars. The Polestar 4 SUV Coupe generates about 20 tons of CO2 to build. Charging the car on public chargers for 200,000 miles would generate a further 10 tons of CO2. So, that's 30 tons of CO2 for 200,000 miles of driving. Running the small Kia Picanto (a city car with a pretty efficient petrol engine) for 200,000 miles generates 37 tons of CO2. And that's without the CO2 generated, the carbon debt, to build this ICE car, the stats for which Kia doesn't publish. That Polestar's large, luxurious SUV has a lower environmental footprint over its lifetime than a tiny, gasoline-sipping city car doesn't mean sales of such vehicles should be encouraged–smaller EVs made to the same eco-conscious standards would have even lower lifetime emissions, and wouldn't pose so much danger to pedestrians and cyclists—but it's essential to bust the myth that small ICE cars are better for the planet than humoungous e-SUVs. (An argument for another article is whether any oversized cars, and their larger, particulate-shedding tires, should be allowed in cities.) Geely makes the Polestar 4 in a factory in China, which has solar panels on the roof and gets the bulk of its electricity from a hydroelectric power station. Charging the Polestar 4 at home using the ever-greener grid or home solar panels would generate even less lifetime CO2. Analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) estimates that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of 2024 electric sedans in the US are 66%–70% lower than gasoline vehicles, depending on the average carbon intensity of the electricity grid. For SUVs, the ICCT estimates that the emissions are 71%–74% lower than gasoline vehicles, depending on the same conditions. EVs have no tailpipe emissions. However, generating the electricity used to charge EVs may create carbon pollution. The amount varies based on how local power is generated, whether using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. A significant advantage of EVs compared to gasoline vehicles is their energy efficiency. EVs use about 90% of the energy from the battery and regenerative braking to propel the car. Gasoline vehicles only convert about 16–25% of the energy from gasoline into motion. The production of electric cars is expected to become more efficient, and the production of electricity cleaner, according to the European Environment Agency. Every year, the life-cycle emissions of a typical EV could be cut by at least 73% by 2050, says the agency. Nevertheless, it remains that—mainly because of the large battery—making an EV is more carbon-intensive than making an ICE car. Analysis by the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois suggests that manufacturing EVs produces about 60% more carbon emissions than making ICE cars. However, this carbon debt can be paid back swiftly. 'Essentially it takes two to three years, and then you have accounted for the climate debt that the car came with,' says Fredrika Klarén, Polestar's head of sustainability. 'Our customers want sustainability solutions,' she adds. 'They want to know they are purchasing from a company that takes responsibility. We don't greenwash. I would love for customers to be even more picky and start using the carbon footprints we deliver to them. We want people to use our data in managing a carbon budget for themselves.'
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Nashik unit of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd to roll out its first Tejas MK1A jet in June
: The first Tejas from the Nashik production line ofwill roll out this June, sources have defence PSU had first planned to unveil the jet in May, but the sources said that deadline was postponed due to certain technical HAL hub is in Ozar and is the company's third production line for the , after the two in Bengaluru. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Ozar facility, inaugurated on April 7, 2023, cost HAL Rs 150 crore to set up and is expected to make eight LCAs every year, boosting the jet's overall annual production from the current 16 to MK1A variant of the LCA includes improvements in combat avionics and air-to-air refueling capabilities, officials Feb, TOI had reported that the Indian govt plans to crank up the production of Tejas jets. IAF has received 38 of the 40 Mark 1 variants of the fighters it had ordered as part of two contracts in 2006 and 2010. As for the MK1A variant, HAL is expected to deliver 83 of them, under the Rs 46,898 crore deal it signed in Feb 2021. The Nashik division of HAL has a total of 2,207 employees, including 1,188 technical experts, 624 experts for technical support and 395 engineers. It also makes and overhauls Su-30s and Mig-21s. In fact, its Su-30 MKI Repair and Overhaul (ROH) facility at the Nashik hub was set up in 2014, the first of its kind anywhere in the world, to meet the operational requirements of the 2000, HAL Nashik received orders from govt to manufacture 232 Su-30 MKI aircraft for the IAF. HAL Nashik delivered the first Su-30 MKI aircraft to the IAF in 2004. The last lot of 12 fighter aircraft was completed in 2019-20. After that, HAL Nashik has had no new orders for the jet from IAF.
