Categories
Issue 11

Issue XI: Editors’ Note

The past year saw COVID-19 and lockdowns as the only issues one extensively engaged with, both in their personal and professional lives. The question, “how has the pandemic been treating you?” slipped into every catch-up conversation with peers, friends, family and colleagues. With the current surge of cases in India once again, it is safe to say that even with the vaccine, the pandemic still continues to dominate a major part of our lives. We are constantly reminded of it every time we have to step outside our homes or log in to an online meeting or a Zoom birthday call. 

With this issue, we aim to provide our readers with a ‘pandemic-break’ and delve into stories that are equally important but may have been sidelined with constant COVID updates from newsrooms. 

To begin with, Madhulika Agarwal addresses an essential question revolving around what makes an event ‘newsworthy’ in the first place? And who has the authority on prioritising which news is worth the consumers’ attention? With Amazon’s Twitter antics having grabbed the attention of the media, Samyukta Prabhu and Rohan Pai use this opportunity to highlight the gig workers’ rights that have been sidelined by tech giants such as Amazon, specifically during the course of the pandemic. 

Akanksha Mishra covers the consequences of the Afghanistan peace deal on the country’s population, revealing a critical understanding of the negotiations between three stakeholders – the Taliban, the Afghan government and the United States. Speaking of the United States, Karantaj Singh analyses 100 days of Biden administration by critiquing as well as applauding his contribution towards restoring America’s identity in the global community. With New Zealand’s recently passed miscarriages bereavement leave law, Advaita Singh captures the reader’s attention by examining the relationship between workplaces, the economy and personal grief.

Closer to home, Saaransh Mishra confronts the structure of quasi-federalism in India and its exploitation by the ruling central government in implementing controversial laws such as the recent GNCTD Bill. Furthermore, Muskaan Kanodia explores the vote-bank anxieties behind the intense dedication of political parties towards temple beautification, which appears to complement the rise of religious politics in the country. Ridhima Manocha analyses the ruling government’s contradictory campaign attitudes towards CAA-NRC when contesting the current Assam Assembly elections. Meanwhile, Vaibhav Parik questions India’s Election Commission’s decision to hold the ongoing Assembly elections in multiple phases in the state of West Bengal.

Aarohi Sharma brings back the essential climate change debate and delves into why individuals continue to deny its existence and widespread impact. For our sports enthusiasts, Kavya Satish explores the possible reasons for the increasing loss of viewership and sponsorship in F1 and what it means for the future of the sport. 

To emphasise the immense strain that Coivd-19 has placed on our global healthcare systems, Saman Fatima explores how this has resulted in the marginalisation of treatments of other prevalent diseases among several populations. 

While other stories may continue to struggle to win the fight for our attention with the intensity of the pandemic, we hope our readers are able to take a step back and keep themselves updated with events beyond rising Covid-19 cases and vaccinations. 

-Ariba, Ashana Mathur, Harshita Bedi, Rujuta Singh

Picture Credits: REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha

Categories
Issue 11

100 Days of Biden

It has been over 100 days since President Joe Biden took charge of his administrative duties in the United States. The Biden administration has been highly optimistic by promising to meet an expansive agenda that includes controlling the coronavirus pandemic, enabling economic recovery, revising US climate policy and reviewing their health care system. Biden has also taken active steps to reverse Trump’s isolationist policies and his decisions, alongside  catalysing the process of restoring America’s place in the international community. With only 100 days of his term completed, Biden has taken some notable steps to meet his agendas. 

Within his first few days at the White House, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organisation. He rescinded Trump’s Muslim ban, which restricted immigration from a host of Muslim-majority countries. He took the liberty to address US-China relations by getting on a call with President Xi Jinping to discuss climate change, human rights violations, and trade relations. The President has made it clear to the Americans and the world that he plans on restoring America’s position in the global community and that he is determined to get rid of the isolationist policies introduced by his predecessor. 

The Biden administration fulfilled their 100-day promise of providing 100 M COVID vaccinations within its first 50 days. Biden’s timing could not have been better – as infections were peaking and America’s vaccines were coming online because of Trump’s funding of Operation Warp Speed,  Biden utilised the opportunity to play the hero without having to put in all the work. Moreover, he recently announced that all adults in the US will be eligible for the COVID vaccine by April 19th. 

Biden is firing on all cylinders to ensure that repercussions of the pandemic can be contained, singing a $1.9 trillion relief package to fight the pandemic and restore the US economy. The relief package, currently Biden’s top priority, plans to send direct payments of up to $1,400 to most Americans. The bill also includes a $300 per week unemployment insurance boost until 6th September 2021 and steps ahead to expand the child tax credit for a year. The relief plan also allocates $25 billion into rental and utility assistance, and $350 billion into state, local and tribal relief. It puts nearly $20 billion into Covid-19 vaccinations. 

Biden’s plan to reverse Trump’s tax cuts on corporations has been championed by the Left, but the effectiveness of implementing this policy needs to be carefully considered.  Biden’s tax policy wants to raise the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 37% and the top corporate income tax rate to 28% from 21%. This move will allow the government to collect a tax revenue of approximately $4 trillion by 2030. President Biden claims that his administration will ensure American companies  contribute tax dollars to help invest in the country’s roads, bridges, water pipes and other parts of his economic agenda. The plan detailed by the Treasury Department would make it harder for companies to avoid paying taxes on both U.S. income and profits stashed abroad. 

While this move sounds good on paper, its effective implementation has several obstacles. Corporates with major accounting teams and an army of lawyers have continued to find safe havens and loopholes in tax laws to legally avoid paying taxes. A tax hike of this rate also increases the probability of tax evasion and tax fraud, which will undoubtedly lead to the creation of a larger shadow economy. Additionally, in a post covid world that has witnessed large scale unemployment, increasing taxes on corporations and high bracket earners is going to  push firms to cut costs, thereby creating disincentives for hiring. The increase in taxation may also push firms to switch gears and focus more on international markets such as Hong Kong or Singapore that offer lower corporate tax rates. While progressive taxation is ideally the way to go, the Biden government must ensure that its implementation takes into account all the limitations of the current system. 

The Trump administration focused on deregulation in the manufacturing sector to ensure productivity and economic efficiency, whereas Biden  promises to focus on sustainable development. As part of his election campaign, Biden had released a 10-year, $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan. The plan aims to move the U.S. to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Biden’s climate change plan in total would cost the US approximately 2 trillion dollars, which he aims to fund by reversing Trump’s excess tax cuts on corporations and putting an end to subsidies for fossil fuels. While Trump focused on short-term economic efficiency, Biden’s plan is for the future. Switching to sustainable means of manufacturing is going to undoubtedly drive up costs for the American economy, but has the potential to  create middle-class jobs and ensure environmental conservation. 

Biden has had over 100 successful days since being sworn in, mainly because the bar set by his predecessor was quite low to begin with, but also because of his constructive policies. He envisions an America that will not be easy or cheap to achieve. While Biden’s plans cease to be as optimistic as “Mexico will pay for it,” they still are overreaching. The policies and infrastructural changes that Biden aims to implement would likely add to the 28 trillion dollar debt, but as long as the economy is developed in a constructive manner, there is hope for Biden’s America.

Karantaj Singh finished his undergraduate in History and International Relations. He is now pursuing a minor in Media Studies and Politics during his time at the Ashoka Scholars Program. He enjoys gaming and comics in his free time. 

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 11

The Hamartia of Human Reasoning: Why Do We Deny Climate Change?

Prior to the pandemic, the conversation surrounding anthropogenic climate change had captured global attention like never before – aided by the global platform attained by the School Strike for Climate movement. Though the Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increased concern about human interactions with their environment, the discourse on climate change has not radically changed how populations tend perceive the real threat it poses. This problem is not new – despite broad scientific consensus about the realities of anthropogenic climate change, why are human beings so bad at accepting that it is a real phenomenon? What does this denial indicate?

Individual Processes

The first set of explanations for climate change denial pertain to the nature of the problem itself – a phenomenon that is diffused across time and space, disruptive to existing global socio-economic systems and threatens human existence. 

Construal Level Theory

The construal level theory describes the relationship between psychological distance – the cognitive separation between the self and other entities, such as other persons, instances, areas, etc. – and individuals’ degree of abstract or concrete thinking. This theory holds that as the object in question moves closer to the individual in terms of psychological distance, it is thought of in more concrete terms as opposed to abstract terms. The nature of climate change – a gradual phenomenon, spanning large expanses of time and differentially impacting spaces – inherently tends to be thought of in an abstract, distant fashion instead of approached as a concrete, real-time phenomenon. Thus, this thought mechanism can lead to, and encourage, denialist tendencies of climate change.

Worry, Fear and Control 

The theory of finite pool of worry holds that people have a limited capacity for worrying about multiple issues at once. As worry for a particular kind of risk increases, the ability of individuals to be concerned about other kinds of risks lessens. Building from the logic of the construal level theory, it becomes apparent that individuals tend to worry about issues that are closer to them in time and space – e.g., prioritizing short-term stresses such as finding a job, over concerns about the long-term, diffused problem of climate change. 

Terror management theory indicates that since climate change is a bitter reminder of their mortality, individuals may resort to denying it. Moreover, it has also been indicated that when people believe that they have no control over climate change, they feel encouraged to deny the problem

Risk Perception 

Individuals process information through a model consisting of two systems. The ‘affective’ system – which is quick, automatic, and intuitive – processes adverse and uncertain aspects of the environment into emotional, or affective responses (e.g., fear). The ‘analytical’ system uses algorithms and rules for information processing, is slower and requires conscious awareness and control. It does not come into operation automatically, rather has to be learnt to be used (e.g., long division).

These two strands of information processing interact with one another to assess the risks in an individual’s environment. The issue of climate change presents a case where there is disconnect between the outputs of the affective and analytical systems – due to a lack of emotional response to climate change caused by insufficient personal experience with it. Since the efficacy of analytic reasoning is hindered without the assistance and guidance of emotions, this results in an inadequate level of concern about the phenomenon. Thus, for some individuals – especially those who are not personally exposed to the effects of climate change – climate change is not perceived to be a risk. 

Group Processes 

Placing individual tendencies for information processing in a social context provides for an extended understanding of the psychology of climate change denial.

System Justification Theory

The system justification theory states that people tend to defend themselves, their group and the social, economic and political systems on which they depend. Thus, individuals – especially those who enjoy comfortable lives within their social structures – find it difficult to confront the environmental consequences of their lifestyles, which are upheld by the larger global political order.

Identity-protective Motivated Cognition 

Identity-protective motivated cognition causes individuals to process information in a way that aligns with their membership in ideologically or culturally defined groups rather than relying on scientific evidence to make their judgements. Identity-protective motivated cognition can influence individuals belonging to groups that do not believe in climate change to overlook scientific evidence and align with their group’s views on the matter. 

Attribution 

Attribution theory has indicated that individuals decide the causes of the same phenomena differently depending upon whether the actor is perceived to be a member of an in-group or out-group. This effect was demonstrated in a study, where American participants were shown evidence of excessive energy use by fellow Americans (in-group) versus the Chinese (out-group). The experiment indicated that the participants were more likely to attribute climate change to natural, rather than anthropogenic causes – i.e., dismissing the responsibility of the issue from their group, likely due to the role of attribution in their perception of the problem of climate change.

Differential Impacts and Climate Change Denial

Groups that are disproportionately affected by the impacts of environmental hazards tend to show higher levels of climate related concern and are motivated by equity concerns when approaching the question of climate change. A US study found that non-white participants consistently expressed more concern about climate change than their white counterparts. This effect also extended to gender identity; opinion polls conducted in the US indicated that women tend to display more environmental concern than men

This effect is attributed to the fact that white males in the US may feel less vulnerable to the effects of climate change, partially due to the privilege they wield in society. It was also found that white men in the US were more likely to deny the reality of climate change when compared to other demographic groups. Hence, it can be inferred that inter-group power dynamics have the potential to influence levels of climate change denial in society. 

At a macro level, different countries also vary in levels of climate change denial. Individuals in developing countries display higher levels of concern about climate change, than those in developed nations. This effect is assumed to be due to the fact developing countries tend to experience higher climate vulnerability – which affects personal commitment to mitigation, and support of mitigation policies.

Climate change denial poses a unique problem to human existence. It reveals human limitations to address threats that are diffused across time and space, are disruptive to the functioning of existing socio-political and economic systems and can come into conflict with individual and group values. Though scientists have successfully identified the existential problem of climate change and highlighted efficient solutions for its mitigation, it is the fallacy in common judgement, – the hamartia of human reasoning – guided by individual and group processes, that hinder its resolution as time runs out.  

Author’s Bio: Aarohi Sharma is a Psychology student at Ashoka University. Her academic interests primarily focus on the intersection of politics and psychology in society.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 6

2020: A year to forget or remember?

2020 was poised to be a landmark year for the global environmental movement. The locus of change was supposed to emerge from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (CoP26), which was expected to reverse the trend of inaction in environmental protection by getting countries to pledge to enhanced emission reduction targets and establish clear frameworks and plans for meeting them. Ironically, this much-awaited (and delayed) meeting of world leaders was shut down by a global pandemic whose roots, we are now told, lie in environmental degradation, particularly dwindling forest cover and industrial agriculture

But one must be wary before equating 2020 as solely the year of the pandemic. From bushfires in Australia to oil spill in the Arctic to the series of flash floods that ravaged the length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent, a flurry of natural disasters have quietly made their appearance in the background, declaring that climate change is here and now.

The past year has shown us just how vulnerable (in all senses of the term) we are to the effects of crises. Not only did pandemic force the world to its knees, it showed us just how much the effects of any disaster will be disproportionately distributed among the global populace. Nowhere could this be more clearer than in India where tens of millions of ‘impoverished essential workers’, a combination to be found only in our times, were the hardest hit from the ordeal.   

But forcing the world to sit at home and question its priorities, it seems, has worked counterproductively. As the world looks to reopen, not by choice but as an inevitable consequence of our economic models which will not allow any break in production, mindfulness and caution will be thrown out of the window.

Countries looking to make up lost money (and time) are already hacking down green barriers and environmental protection laws with increasing ferocity. This trajectory is blatantly obvious in India which unfortunately also happens to be one of the most vulnerable places on earth to the effects of the ecological crisis. Measures to help the country “get back on its feet”, like encouraging greater use of coal, fast-tracked (and often bypassed) environmental clearances and the mindless assault on forests, wetlands and other ecosystems will only serve to ruin us further.

Too little, too late

But despite the extent and seriousness of the crisis, it is staggering how much of humanity and particularly those in power have tended to treat the crisis: unimportant or worse, as non-existent. International negotiations and climate agreements never fail to disappoint. Even if one were to digest the ridiculously conservative estimates and targets set in these pacts, the fact that most are non-binding and do not carry a strong accountability framework demonstrates their seriousness.  

Developed countries or those most responsible for the crisis have failed to pay even half of the annual $100 bn pledged for financing climate change adaptation and mitigation projects in developing countries. This is despite the fact most estimates strongly suggest that we will need to pump in at least twice or thrice as much to make a difference. 

Time and again, the problem of “too little, too late” has been the norm in international climate agreements. It is then hardly a surprise that we have not met (or close to meeting) even a single target set in the last 30 years and have breached almost every limit set by these agreements

Where do we go from here?

What prevents strong mobilization and action towards fixing climate change and the overall ecological crisis? The opposition to the Green New Deal, a pro-environment legislation in America by the Republican party is a strong indicator of what is to come in the coming years. 

Conservative politicians, many of them funded by fossil fuel industries, have gawked at the amount of money required to fix the problems created by these companies in the first place. a climatically unstable world will bring economic damage far worse than the proposed budget. Instead, they have expressed faith in waiting for grand technological solutions that will solve all our problems at the turn of a switch. 

Investing or mobilizing to prevent a full-blown crisis does not make “economic sense” to many. In other words, the present course must be maintained for as long as possible since the crisis is inescapable. 

The problem, however, is that it imagines climate change as a series of apocalyptic and earth-shattering events that we are so used to seeing in popular fiction and cinema. But instead, the effects of climate change will play out in far more complex and perhaps, insidious ways. Its effects will not just be limited to the natural world but will also produce deep schisms in our everyday political, social and economic lives. Further, it puts the lives of billions, mostly the marginalized and the poor at the greatest risk, not to mention the loss of unimaginable amounts of natural, social and cultural capital. In short, hurtling towards a world where natural systems will be fundamentally altered will prove humanity’s greatest folly.

The proposition that climate change is irreversible will be the biggest fight of the environmental movement in the coming years. This fear is reflected in the choice of theme for Earth Day 2021 – Restore the Earth. It draws attention to the fact that enough and more can (and should) still be done to restore the Earth’s ecological balance. Wilfully (and conveniently) ignoring it is to commit an act of grave injustice towards humanity.

A year to never forget

While 2020 has certainly been a long year, it would be a terrible mistake to forget the things it has taught us. For starters, the pandemic has shown our political and economic priorities for what they are: twisted and skewed towards the elite. The climate change movement is gathering momentum and interest around our impact on the environment is at an all-time high. 

Individuals, interest groups, expert coalitions and civil society organizations are finding new ways to think about the crisis, mobilize, generate change and push for sensible, long-term action. Children and young adults, in particular, are finding their voice and seeking answers  to difficult questions in order to secure their future. As with any struggle, there are silver linings, albeit small and scattered. 

The scope for change is massive, but the window of opportunity is limited. As another round of negotiations begin in November 2021, it is up to us to force action and consequently, ensure that by remembering 2020 we do not ever repeat it.

Picture Credit: bertknot

Rohit is student of history and sociology from Ashoka University. Currently he is a Mother Teresa Fellow and working to be an educator at Pitchandikulam Forest Consultants.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 3

A Life on Our Planet: an appeal to all of us, on nature’s behalf

The rusted insignia of the hammer and the sickle. Walls rotting, cracking into pieces like soil during a drought. Chairs sitting in abandonment. Among a sea of tattered books and a room of shattered glass, emerges the 94-year old naturalist and broadcaster, Sir David Fredrick Attenborough in his new documentary A Life on Our Planet. Standing in the ghost town of Pripyat, abandoned by civilization almost 60-years ago as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion, David Attenborough begins an intimate address of his witness statement. 

He reminds us that while the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, “a result of bad planning and human error”, was a disastrous event in human history, it is only one tragic example from a long list of errors made by us. Human mistakes, perhaps no less harmful, continuously occur across the globe. These errors have overrun the natural world and led to a steep decline in the planet’s biodiversity. Just as Chernobyl did, is the Earth too heading towards becoming uninhabitable? 

Though Attenborough humbly appreciates how extraordinary his life spent exploring the wild has been, his experiences through time have taught him that the wild is finite and needs protecting. He describes how centuries ago humans had arrived at a stage where their “predators were eliminated and diseases were controlled.” Once we felt that there was nothing left to stop us, our wants grew endlessly and we kept exhausting the Earth in an unsustainable manner. 

The documentary highlights a trajectory of instances where the growing demand of our species has led to the ruin of the non-human world: deforestation of the Borneo rainforest, the decline of  Orangutans, animals pursued to extinction, overfishing, warming of the Arctic summers, depleting freshwater and the turning of coral reefs to white. While the bleaching of coral reefs is mistaken to many as a beautiful phenomenon, it is a tragedy draped in white as it signifies the dying of the reefs. But there’s more to the documentary. It isn’t just another story about the global decline of nature. 

Although the documentary begins by acknowledging how we have threatened the stability of our planet, it goes further to show that there is still hope for us. We stand a chance against our own mistakes if we find ways to live sustainably and reintegrate back with nature. Using the comfort of Attenborough’s voice to intimately describe his experiences in the wild, the documentary seems to invite its viewers to be concerned about the environment not out of guilt, but perhaps out of responsibility. The documentary attempts to evoke a sense of collective consciousness toward our planet’s climate crisis. 

Throughout history, collective consciousness has played a role in bringing about change in different realms of society. In the environmental realm, such an instance of change is mentioned in the documentary when Attenborough describes how people’s perception towards the killing of whales was changed in the 1970s. Many environmental groups pushed the agenda against the whaling industry which sparked widespread public discussion on the issue. The harvest of whales was eventually made a crime as a result of the formation of shared consciousness revolving around the issue of whaling. 

Since the development of collective consciousness can have such a profound impact, it is natural to question how such consciousness is created in the first place. What unites people to form similar beliefs? Are there particular sources that help in the creation of collective consciousness? Have these sources transformed over time? How can we create a collective consciousness in today’s world? 

Before attempting to answer these questions, let us first look at the origin of the concept. The French theorist and sociologist Emile Durkheim was one of the first to coin the term. He recognised that while people had individual moral principles, they were often bound to one another by culture and shared a sense of solidarity with each other. 

According to Durkheim, the phenomenon resulted in a set of beliefs, ideas and principles which was shared collectively by many individuals in society. One of the biggest driving forces for the development of collective consciousness was the fact that it created a sense of belonging among people. 

Over time, the source of collective consciousness changed. In his book The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim suggests that primitive and modern societies followed different models of solidarity. Primitive societies followed a “mechanical model”. People in such societies were united by shared beliefs, religious practices and ideas. This was a time when people’s attributes were homogeneous in nature, they didn’t work in different economic branches. Thus, people in primitive societies were mainly similar to one another. They shared unifying experiences.

The forms of collective consciousness we see today have been influenced by the attributes of modern society. Durkheim terms the social integration of such societies as “organic solidarity”. Modern economies are based on the division of labour and this creates a whole range of classes. People now have different jobs, believe in different gods, practise different religions and in general have very different experiences. However, since people have specialised roles in society, they are bound to be dependent on each other. The dissimilarity, the heterogeneity among people has created solidarity as a result of a high level of interdependence. 

Even though it seems that people now lead very individual lives, we still have found ways to express ideas and build collective consciousness. In the early days of modern societies, the advent of mass communication was one of the biggest sources boosting the dissemination of ideas widely and quickly. Different forms of the media gave us ways to not only to express our ideas but also created spaces where we could affirm them. While the media was initially used as a means to distribute ideas, it also became a means to influence the existing ones and create new kinds of ideas that shaped the consciousness of the collective. 

Even in the case of whaling, radio, television and print media were widely used to create the collective consciousness. Songs, films and literature on Whales grew to such an extent that Whales became popular personalities. People started viewing whales as creatures that needed to be protected. Thus, the media played an important role in building collective consciousness against whaling. This eventually led to the growth of anti-whaling activism. 

As technology progressed, we experienced a shift in the source responsible for the expression of ideas. In today’s world, that source is the internet. In the past, collective consciousness emerged from sources such as holy scriptures, traditional beliefs or big media houses. Now, with the power of the internet, all those with access to the internet have the ability to influence and shape the collective consciousness with varying degrees. Every element on the internet exists with the possibility of being a part of the collective consciousness.

David Attenborough’s documentary A Life on Our Planet, has come out in times where the internet is perhaps the most important source for shaping the collective consciousness. But he started imparting his influence much before the advent of the internet. 

Back in the 1950s, people didn’t know what Pythons, Pangolins and most other animals looked like. He was one of the first people to bring documentaries of the wild and the natural world to television screens. For those of us who have been fortunate enough to have regular access to television, we have grown up watching Attenborough’s documentaries and listening to voice. His appreciation of the natural world has been contagious and has inspired many. Thus, when a personality like Attenborough publicly immerses himself in ecological activism, he comes with the powerful ability to push the collective consciousness to care about the planet. 


Along with changing times, Attenborough too has updated by taking some of his activism online. He now uses Instagram to raise awareness about climate change. His latest documentary landed on Netflix, a popular streaming platform especially among the youth. Although his activism through these different platforms contributes towards the creation of collective consciousness towards the environment, it is up to us to manifest our consciousness in a way that can bring about change.

Shrishti is a Politics, Philosophy and Economics major at Ashoka University. In her free time, you’ll find her cooking, dancing or photographing.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).