The 2026-2027 recommendations were determined by the TAL using a new method of calculation. With the old formula proving inefficient in post- Covid years, the new formula takes inflation and previous rent prices into account. While Eric Sansoucy, spokesperson of the Corporation des propriétaires immobiliers du Québec (CORPIQ) representing Quebec landlords, told the Montreal Gazette that “the balanced solution is at inflation,” it has been shown that if the new formula had been applied to preceding years, excluding 2025, the TAL would have predicted a much steeper increase in rent over the past two decades. Thus, tenants associations have protested against the new recommendations, with Shannon Franssen, interim coordinator of the Coalition of Housing Rights Committees of Quebec (RCLALQ), declaring to CTV News that the new TAL formula contributes to an “inflationary spiral” of rent prices. Franssen explains that, seeing as the new calculation takes previous rent prices into account and rents have increased for the past few years, “rents are going up and justify further rent increases.”

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reported that in Montreal, despite an overall easing in the market, rents increased by 7.2 per cent in 2025 — a number significantly above the TAL’s 2025-2026 5.9 per cent recommendation. Steve Blair, community organizer for the Quebec Coalition of Housing Committees and Tenants’ Associations (RCLALQ), remarked to the Daily that rents “often go up faster than the [predicted] rate.” Blair explained that it is often difficult to prevent landlords from bumping the prices up as “tenants either don’t refuse, or can’t refuse, or there is a change in tenants.”

This 7.2 per cent increase outpaced the overall increase in income, meaning housing became even less affordable for most. The easing in the market that the CMHC describes is partly due to a rise in new, largely unaffordable, residences, while affordable units remain desperately scarce and are even disappearing from Montreal with further rent increases.

It is in this context of already unaffordable housing and heightening prices that the TAL recommended a 3.1 per cent increase for the year to come. Blair described this increase as only slightly “less bad than last year,” which he had characterised as the “worst year on record by far.”

Nevertheless, these TAL guidelines are only recommendations. As a tenant, you may refute the increase in rent if you deem it unfair or unlawful. In its last fiscal year, the TAL received 22,494 requests to settle a rent dispute. Resources provided by the RCLALQ allow Montreal tenants to more easily calculate how much rent may increase, how to refuse rent increases, and what procedures to follow afterwards. Syndicat des locataires autonomes de Montréal (SLAM), the autonomous syndicate of tenants, also provides support for tenants seeking help or suffering from abusive landlords. The collective actively protested against the new TAL recommendations on January 29 and helped build tenant unions in the city.

Amidst rising rent prices and unaffordable housing, it is important to remember that tenants have rights too.

The post TAL Recommendations and Rent Inflation in Montreal appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Nearly a year after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, a delegation of the United Nations’ Security Council visited the country for the first time ever. Stéphane Dujarric, a UN Spokesperson, optimistically declared that “[the UN] hope[s] that this visit will deepen the dialogue between the United Nations and Syria.” This visit marks the end of Syrian international isolation, a goal the interim government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa is striving for. In fact, this establishment of global relations is something al-Sharaa had in mind before he came into power: his Islamist military group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), was supported from its early days by Turkey, which sought to make post-Assad Syria an ally on the international scene. In light of this, UN officials and organisations, like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), are now authorised within Syria after being banned under Assad. 

Syria’s return to the international scene is also motivated by economics: the US and the European Union, aiming to discourage the formation of alliances between Syria and countries like Russia and Iran, have now lifted most of the sanctions that once strangled Damascus and the Syrian economy. Yet, the main supporters of the young Syrian government are in the Persian Gulf: Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s capital cities settled the 15$ million debt Syria had accumulated with the World Bank. This bridging of relations with the West culminated in al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House and meeting with US President Donald Trump on November 10th. On the other hand, Syria’s increased interaction with the West has weakened ties between the new Syrian government and Russia. Severing  economic contracts, Damascus has stopped printing its money in Russia. Tensions have grown around Russian bases in Syria: attacks, disavowed by the Syrian government as efforts by an individual initiative of militants, targeted the Russian base of Khmeimim in May. Despite the historic hostility of HTS towards Moscow, as Russian forces frequently attacked them during the civil conflict that divided Syria from 2011 until the collapse of the Assad regime, al-Sharaa’s approach in relations with Russia seems to remain rather pragmatic. 

Despite recent efforts, rebuilding the Syrian government is not only a matter of international relations. The progress of al-Sharaa’s government has been inconsistent  within Syria itself – not unsurprising considering the difficulty and immensity of governance after five decades of crushing dictatorship. Even while looking to attain international legitimacy, al-Sharaa and new Syrian authorities have been unable to prevent outbreaks of violence over the past year as sectarian tensions linger in Syrian society. The Assad regime favored the Alawite sect of Shia Islam from which the family hailed, and advertised itself as protecting the Druze and Christian minorities. Since the regime’s fall, fears have risen of Sunni Muslims and Bedouins expressing their resentment through violence, attacking the aforementioned sects favoured by the regime in which they were oppressed. In March, those fears came to fruition: intercommunal violence sparked in Alawite-majority coastal areas after clashes between remnants of Pro-Assad military and new Syrian authorities, leaving over 1,400 people dead, most of them civilians. In July, clashes between Bedouin and Druze communities in southern Syria led to massacres. When government forces intervened, they showed biased support towards Bedouin Sunnis, giving them weapons and executing Druze members in an “extrajudicial manner”, according to an Amnesty International investigation. In response to the situation, central authorities put in place investigation committees and set up a trial – yet, many Syrians denounced this as merely a masquerade. Out of 300 affiliated officers and 265 paramilitary accused in the affair, only 14 were placed on trial, 7 of which were members of HTS. So far, none of them have been convicted. This has sparked serious concerns over the independence of the judicial system, shaping a budding perception of the new regime as a government that prioritises the Bedouin Sunnis over all others. Some Alawites even say that al-Sharaa’s coming to power is simply that “we’ve changed the driver of the bus…but the passengers are the same.” In contrast, when a Bedouin couple were killed south of Homs, Syria’s third largest city, with sectarian slogans scrawled on the walls next to their corpses, government forces successfully worked with tribal leaders to diffuse the situation and prevent new conflicts. 

The resurgence of ISIS attacks after the fall of the Assad regime has only exacerbated Syria’s domestic instability. The power vacuum left after the dictator’s forced departure on December 8th, 2024 enabled ISIS cells to move more freely within the country and recruit members more easily, while simultaneously gaining easier access to larger quantities of arms after the dismantlement of pro-Assad forces. Indeed, despite the defeat of the “caliphate” more than half a decade ago, ISIS cells have continued decentralized, underground operations, maintaining a notable presence in Syria to this day. Nawaf Khalil, director of the Kurdish Center for Studies, an independent research center in Germany focusing on Kurdish history, explains that “ISIS benefited greatly from the fall of the regime.”  The number of attacks this year seems to corroborate this: according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 224 attacks were carried out by ISIS, killing 68 soldiers of the Syrian Democratic Forces and 15 civilians. 

In addition to this, despite claims by al-Sharaa’s government that they avoided engaging in conflicts with Israel, Israeli raids and incursions have plagued the south of Syria. On the 28th of November, an Israeli raid on the countryside town Beit Jinn in southwest Damascus killed thirteen people, including two children, just weeks after locals resisted an incursion by the Israeli army. Israel has argued that the raid was meant to target members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Lebanese branch, which rebutted that “it was not active outside of Lebanon”. This is a recurrent pattern: Israeli forces frequently attack Syria, with over a thousand such attacks having occurred since the fall of the Assad regime. These strikes are carried out in spite of the UN Security Council’s demands that Israel respect the 1974 agreement and not infringe on Syrian territory anymore. The agreement had implemented a zone of separation between Syria and Israel, after the disengagement of their troops and the release of prisoners. 

Even while violence continues to affect much of Syria, the interim government of al-Sharaa seems to be keeping its promise to orient the country towards a more democratic regime. The Syrian parliamentary elections held in October, while being an indirect vote, saw the casting of ballots by 6000 electoral colleges across Syria to elect two-thirds of Parliament, even without proper political parties in place, with President al-Sharaa selecting the remaining third –  representing a first step towards democracy. Despite concerns over growing presidential power and inclusivity in the newly elected parliament (consisting of a nearly homogenous group of Sunni Muslim men), the recent election remains a display of the will to move away from the Assad dictatorial structure. That being said, the concerns of insufficient political representation remain non-negligible: Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid reported such concerns, writing that “If you ask the Druze in the south or the Kurds in the north, they [will] say [that the elections] were not representative.” Yet, “If you ask people in major cities, like Aleppo, Damascus, Hama, and other parts of the country, they’re hopeful that this is the first taste of a real election.” In other words, there remains a lot of work to do to attain popular representation and a democratic regime in Syria, and international attention should remain on the new regime to ensure it does not deviate from this path. 

Crises in Syria are far from settled, and continued humanitarian aid to alleviate the effects of political conflict is still needed: the OHCHR now has a permanent office in Damascus to operate on the ground. However, as Mohammad Al Nsour, Chief of the Middle East and North Africa Section at OHCHR, says, “There is a political will from the government to improve,” igniting hope for the future of Syria.

The post Syria: A Year After Liberation from the Assad Regime appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On November 10 the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) gathered in Belém, a Brazilian city situated within the Amazon rainforest, for discussions  running until at least November 21. The COP is the annual climate change conference organized by the UN, bringing together nearly all world nations to discuss, negotiate, and assess  the response to climate change as well as  the current environmental situation. 

Despite the absence of US Federal Governmental presence at COP30, with the Trump administration having sent no representative, over 100 subnational US officials are attending the Conference; including representatives from climate coalitions, state governors, and city mayors. The European Union delegation was able to attend, bringing a last minute deal involving lower climate ambitions after opposition to stronger  climate efforts led by Italy, Poland and Hungary. On the other hand, the presence and dedication of important world leaders such as Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, President of Brazil, and of Xi Jinping, President of China — a country responsible for about a third of the world’s entropic C02 emissions —  shows their consideration for COP30’s organization and decisions. Their presence also gives hope regarding the ambitions of the conference. Many diplomats hope that this COP summit will be historic in developing  solutions to the climate crisis. André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, Brazil’s Vice-Minister for Climate, Energy, and Environment at the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and COP30 President declared that he wants this year’s COP to be “genuinely transformative” rather than “business as usual.”

The United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), a think tank that  researches and provides policy advice on human security related to  natural hazards and climate change, wishes for  a genuinely transformative conference. The UNU-EHS is hoping that COP30 can reach milestone decisions by the end of the conference. As the Paris Agreement entails, the UNU-EHS expects that countries will scale up their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): the plans for each country to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by the 2025 deadline. If countries manage to obtain this at COP30, it will spark a positive pattern, inciting countries to aim for higher ambitions in the future, and enact a “ratchet-up mechanism” as the UNU-EHS describes it. 

The UNU-EHS also expects COP30 to implement further Adaptation Plans. These are processes established during  COP16 that specifically help Least Developed Countries (LDCs) achieve their climate goals, and reform climate finance to increase participating nations’ capabilities to commit to their climate efforts. COP30 is also expected to increase the  efficiency and capacity of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) which addresses  climate change related damages. Finally,  COP30 marks the ten-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, allowing for a symbolic occasion to renew pledges and commitments to climate efforts. 

Despite high expectations, many still doubt COP30’s ability to succeed. Protesters in Belém denounced world leaders’ ignorance of COP decisions and displayed their disdain toward the climate by posing as caricatures of Lula and Trump. Last year’s COP29 in Baku was deemed a disappointment by many for not producing the breakthroughs in climate action it had promised beforehand, like a new commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. 

Finally, though COP’s setting in Belém this year symbolizes climate protection, the conference’s  location poses an additional number of challenges. Despite the COP organization claiming to further include indigenous populations in climate negotiations, an issue of  particular importance to Belém as a city located on indigenous Amazonian land, attention to indigenous representatives’ demands have seldom been listened to. Furthermore, as Belém is a relatively small city, expensive accommodations for the conference risked excluding poorer delegations and  NGO representatives. The city’s limited space has additionally caused the deforestation of a section of the Amazon for the event, as the state government cleared the forest to allow for the construction of a four-lane highway in expectation of the COP for example; sparking criticism towards the organization meant to protect the environment. 

Overall, COP30 is an event that holds ambitious promises for now. Still, early problems within its organization already question the dedication of the COP to combat the climate crisis, and put into question the efficacy of the summit. Indeed, how can we expect nations to follow COP guidelines and deals when the organization itself clears the Amazon for the sake of its event

The post Cop 30 in Belém: Challenges, Ambitions and Concerns appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In July, Blue Dog — another bar on Saint Laurent — had to close due to frequent noise complaints from neighbours. This same pressure was put on Champs, which had to consequently cancel its dance and live music events. Even stages that used to host Montreal’s rock and indie scene in intimate venues, like Divan Orange or The Divine Bell Social Club, are closing up due to the high number of noise complaints they have been facing.

Is the closure of these institutions a testimony to Montreal’s dying nightlife? Have clubs and live music only become a nuisance to gentrified Montreal neighbourhoods? 

The cost of living in Montreal has risen dramatically in the last decade. With rent prices in Montreal skyrocketing by 71 per cent since 2019, ‘going out’ has become rarer as people opt for nights in over nights out to save money. ‘Home-tainment’ has become increasingly popular, with greater access to varied music through streaming, as well as the diminished price of consumption at home. This trend is not constrained to Montreal: nightclubs and bars are closing across North America and Europe as well. Great Britain, for example, went from having 3,144 nightclubs in 2005 to only 1,733 in 2025. The gentrification of certain areas of the city, like Mile-End or the Plateau, contributed to rises in rent and consumption prices, and in turn the arrival of new residents either less inclined to enjoy or more intolerant to nightlife activities. This also means that nightclubs and bars are more exposed to noise complaints in Montreal. Unlike cities such as London, Toronto, and Melbourne, Montreal nightlife venues are not protected by the system of the agent of change principle. In these other cities, this system protects venues from abusive noise complaints by decreeing that new buildings in the neighbourhood adapt to their surroundings and take responsibility for their own soundproofing. 

The new “framework policy for nighttime activities,” issued by the Mayor of Projet Montréal, has been criticised by venues and nightlife actors. Despite promoting cohabitation, it does nothing to limit the costs of owning a venue. In fact, the framework proposes ‘24h spaces’ free of noise complaints, which would only lead to rental prices — and consequently consumption prices at these venues — skyrocketing. This is according to Mathieu Grondin, director of Mtl 24/24: an organisation that seeks to develop and destigmatize nightlife in Montreal, particularly in the underground scene. Furthermore, if the plan agrees to financially support mainstream “centres of nightlife vitality” and independent theatres, not a cent will be sent to the underground scene of Montreal, arguably the most thriving cultural scene of the city. 

Rave culture and the techno scene emerged in Montreal as early as the 1990s, stemming from the UK’s late 80s electronic tradition. At the time, G’nat, co-organiser of Montreal’s first rave, admits that “techno was still pretty obscure” as Montreal’s music scene was dominated by House music. However, the genre grew rapidly into one of the most widespread in North America. Today, the rave scene, which is now both underground and legalised, have become popular to younger partygoers seeking novelty away from  commercial clubs. While the DJs in a regular club often play one trendy hit after another, DJs and underground artists come with their own compositions and remixes, contributing to the novelty of the rave experience. Although illegal drugs used to contribute to the ‘novelty’ of the rave experience, the recent expansion of raves to the public, legalised scene has shown a growing inherent interest among youth in electronic music, from house and edm to hard tech and industrial sounds. Raves and electronic music have emerged from the underground scene to the point that it was in Montreal that the first 36h party marathon of Canada was organised by Mtl 24/24 in August 2023. Halte, Montreal’s first open-air rave festival, also shows the rave scene’s emergence from the underground. Independently run by rave crews and collectives like Octov or Hauterageous in June of this year, the festival showcased underground sounds and artists while boasting as an open-air event accessible to everyone. Moreover, the electronic scene has also reinvented itself to conquer new territory: more intimate and cozy venues like Cafe GotSoul or Cafe FAME provide alternative experiences of live and electronic music in inclusive spaces. These have brought the electronic culture out from the traditional club scene, which typically involves copious amounts of alcohol, loud bass and late nights out. 

In addition to these alternative spacesFurthermore, Montreal has seensaw a boom in the number of festivals it hosted, welcoming more and more especially during summer. While these are temporary events, they show the willingness of people to continue going out and enjoy live music and artists outside of the regular, commercialised night-out format. 

The charm of Montreal’s live music venues and intimate spaces is one we can strive to preserve  in various ways. Even with looming social problems, like gentrification and the surge in rent and cost of living, the Montreal nightlife scene has adapted: bringing its underground rave scene into the spotlight while learning from its resilience and constant renewal. 

The post Is Montreal’s nightlife really dying? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Roberge then claimed that using gender-inclusive writing led to the employment of words “that pose significant problems for the French language.” While languages evolve and change in accordance with their social context or even to advance social progress, the Office Québécois de la langue Français – or the Quebec Ministry of the French Language – seems to take a conservative approach towards the practice of the French language, preferring an unchanging Quebecois French to a dynamic language. Correspondingly, the ban of gender-inclusive writing can be viewed as the grammatical manifestation of the increasingly conservative turn of the Legault government since the last ministry shuffle on September 11. Widely unpopular in public opinion, Legault promised drastic change and announced a new government to illustrate this change.

However, banning the use of gender-inclusive language from official documents by far exceeds grammatical conservatism: it has a real life impact on non-binary and trans communities. The government has announced a plan to ultimately extend this stance to gender- inclusive writing in schools and the healthcare system. But this stance also shows the lack of consideration Legault’s Government and Jean-François Roberge have for trans and non-binary communities, who are Quebec citizens as much as any other person. Celeste Trianon, a trans activist, says, “It’s a kind of policy which serves absolutely no purpose except to exclude people”.” For Victoria Legault, director for Aide aux Trans du Québec (ATQ), the decision came in the context of increasing polarization: “We’re seeing a rise in hatred, intolerance and violence toward trans and nonbinary people here and everywhere, ” she stated to the Montreal Gazette. “Quebec’s decision just encourages or supports this.”

Gender-inclusive language, even if it only appears as something that “doesn’t make sense” for Roberge, has a tangible impact on LGBTQIA+ communities in Canada and elsewhere. The Edgewood Health Network (EHN) testifies that using inclusive language contributes to the mental health of those concerned. It allows transgender or non-binary people not only to be seen, but to be respected, whether it be in a conversation, via text message, or a government document. Inclusive language and writing practices allow for citizens of Quebec to feel seen, as well as allowing them to receive the same sense of inclusion and respect as cisgender peoples. Banning it leaves queer communities susceptible to exclusion, despite the Ministry’s claims to protect them. Saying the ban does not intend  to exclude anyone  does not mean that the ban is not exclusive and that it will not have profound effects on the province’s transgender and non-binary communities, as voiced by critics of the proposal.

The post An End to Gender-Inclusive Writing in Quebec Public Communications appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Author’s note: Bill 97 was abandoned by Legault’s government on September 25. This article was written prior to the government’s decision. This reform proves the importance of uplifting Indigenous and environmentalist voices to protect our land.

In April 2025, Quebec Minister of Natural Resources and Forests Maïté Blanchette-Vézina pushed forward Bill 97, a large reform aimed at Quebec forestry, arguing it would modernize the forestry regime and be more sustainable in the long term. The Act proposed to reform supply licenses from five years of validity to ten years, claiming that it would allow for more sustainable approaches by encouraging longer term investments from forestry exploitation actors: having a longer license, they will by default look further in the future when drafting exploitation regimen. Bill 97 also granted more flexibility to local actors to adapt to the local factors more efficiently. The main component of Bill 97, titled “An Act mainly to modernize the forest regime” is its introduction of the ‘triad-zoning model.’ It would divide Quebec Forestry into three zones: conservation areas where logging is strictly limited, multi-purpose areas which allow for tourism and other activities alongside forest exploitation, and finally “priority forest-development zones” meant for intense timber exploitation.

However, Blanchette-Vézina’s bill was met with much resistance. The only ones who who have
approved of the government’s bill are the industrialists of the forestry, with the Quebec Forest Industry Council claiming it offered more predictability while still blaming it for being “too prescriptive” according to the President of the Conseil de l’industrie forestière du Québec, Jean-François Samray.

As soon as the bill was released, First Nations representatives contested it. Regional Chief Francis Verreault-Paul of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) said Bill 97 was both “extremely surprising and disappointing.” Recommendations made by the Indigenous representatives were not considered at all and Lucien Wabanonik, chief of the Lac-Simon Anishnabe Nation, even called the proposal “an insult to our intelligence.” Indeed, not only did the Minister ignore her constitutional duty to collaborate and concert with Indigenous Peoples in the drafting of a bill that directly affects their lives, livelihoods, and ancestral lands, she also drafted a bill that places the industry above Indigenous rights. Chief Wabanonik explains the bill authorizes traditional activities “only if they do not harm logging,” showing the little consideration this bill, and the way it was written, has for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and ancestral lands.

The “triad-zoning model” planned to grant at least 30 per cent of public forestry in all of Quebec for exclusive exploitation by the industry by 2028. This is not taking into account the ‘multi-use’ zones where logging is also permitted alongside other activities. Because of this, the AFNQL has accused the government of privatizing nearly a third of First Nations territories for industrial interest.

This not only impacts traditional and legal rights of the First Nations, but also the survival and livelihood of communities in addition to the preservation of the environment. While Quebec’s forestry is already more fragile than ever, the Bill places industry over conservation of its natural forests, which have already been compromised as authorities currently authorize clear-cutting far too often. Furthermore, the increase of industrial exploitation will mean the increase in monoculture, which is the direct loss of biodiversity and exposure of the forest to increased risks of fire and disease.

Alongside the AFNQL’s immediate condemnation of Bill 97, the MAMO/MAMU alliance of several Indigenous nations took up protest and blocked forest exploitation by writing letters of expulsion to 11 forestry companies. Environment activists and First Nations members actively protested, even in the streets of Montreal-South. The Cree Nation government also threatened to take legal action using the “Paix des Braves” agreement of 2002. This legally binding treaty protects Cree rights, obligating the Quebec Government to consult them before developing or using Indigenous lands in the North of the province. After the Quebec Ministry conceded to look at proposed amendments over the summer, the AFNQL demanded the complete withdrawal of Bill 97. The only solution would be to draft a bill alongside the First Nations and conservationists, as Chief Verreault-Paul stated, “Only through the full withdrawal of Bill 97 and by returning together to the drawing board can we begin a true co-construction legislative process and envision a balanced future for our forests, while reducing the tensions currently observed on the ground.

The post Contempt for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and the Environment appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In August, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) talks held in Geneva with the goal of drafting a global legally binding document on plastic pollution, failed to yield any results after ten days of discussion.

The lack of consensus, and thus of issuing any plastic production and pollution global regulation, poses serious problems as the environmental plastic emergency becomes more and more pressing. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warns that, unless an international accord is reached soon, plastic waste is projected to triple by 2060. Tuvalu, convention delegate speaking for fourteen small island states in the Pacific, declared that “millions of tonnes of plastic waste will continue to be dumped in our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food security, livelihood and culture.” Indeed, of the 500 million tons of plastic consumed in 2024, 399 million went to waste.

Plastic pollution invades the food chain and provokes biodiversity loss in the oceans. This ripples into human health. Researchers have studied the impacts of plastic pollution in the ocean: amongst others, the transmission of toxic chemicals into the oceans. These are integrated into the food chain and, at some point, in our plates, affecting our health after having affected that of countless marine fauna and flora species. Dioxins or PCBs are some of the chemicals released by plastic waste, with causal links to cancer having been found among humans.

Global efforts are underway to mitigate the plastic pollution crisis, like the work of The Ocean Cleanup, an international non-profit cleaning up plastic waste from our rivers and oceans. However, the long term solution remains reducing plastic production. As UNEP Executive Director Inger Anderson stated, “We will not recycle our way out of the plastic pollution crisis.” Anderson’s concerns have been echoed by countless environmental activists and advocacy groups, including GreenPeace, which has called for the reduction of plastic production by at least 75 per cent by 2040.

If hopes were high at the beginning of the talks in Geneva, the failure to reach consensus over the drafting of a global legally binding document has disillusioned many. The outcome was characterised by The Guardian as a blow to multilateralism, demonstrating that looking for consensus among nations to act collectively is not efficient. The Geneva summit was the fifth occasion on which countries gathered to discuss the plastic pollution document. The original deadline to draft a document was set to December 2024, making August 2025 an already late solution. The consensus has become a “veto tool,” according to Down to Earth journalist Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh. The necessity for all members to agree means only a few countries voting against a decision can block the negotiations.

In light of this, petroleum-producing countries, those who call themselves the ‘like-minded countries’ led by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, the US, Russia and India, blocked all the processes by voting against all beginning drafts. Colombian delegate Sebastiàn Rodriguez stated that the negotiations were “consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don’t want an agreement,” while French Environment Minister Agnès Pagner-Runacher blamed the delay on countries “guided by short-term financial interests.” Hence, the reaching consensus appears to be blocking any advancement to solve the plastic pollution crisis: because of countries who fear caps on plastic production affecting their economies. At this point, abandoning a global approach and considering meeting without the participation of “petrostates,” as coined by Micronesia delegate Dennis Clare, could prove more efficient in reaching a decision.

The post Plastic Pollution: Geneva Meeting Failure appeared first on The McGill Daily.

For over 500 days, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a Sudanese paramilitary group, have besieged the city of el-Fasher in North Darfur, Sudan. The siege has resulted in an unprecedented human crisis, beginning in April 2024, symptomatic of the violence of the civil conflict that broke out a year earlier.

In 2019, Sudan was left in turmoil after the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) overthrew dictator and President al-Bashir, who had ruled over Sudan since 1989. The leaders of the coup, namely General Abdel Fattah-al-Burhan, head of the SAF and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, or ‘Hemedti’, leader of the RSF, rejected civilian rule and overturned the government together in 2021. Burhan became the head of government with Hemedti as his equal. As allies, the RSF and the SAF fought off rebel groups in North Darfur jointly, but were already showing a tendency for excessive violence, notably against civilians. When collaborating, both groups were accused of perpetuating war crimes, including genocide and ethnic cleansing, notably targeting non-Arab populations of North Darfur or Kordofan. Yet the eventual merging of the RSF into the Sudanese Army began to create tensions between the two men over who would lead the united force, and thus hold power in Sudan.

Hence it was not long until hostilities began in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. On April 15 2023, the first shots of the civil war were fired, with the RSF and the SAF each accusing the other of firing first. The conflict rapidly spread to Darfur, North Kordofan, and the Gezira – strongholds of the RSF. Khartoum is in the hands of the Sudan Armed Forces after seizing it in March 2025, even if the city is not unscathed.As the SAF were forced to retire from the capital, the army of General Dagalo took revenge on civilians, as witnessed by Anne Applebaum, journalist for the Atlantic. Dalago’s RSF forces not only looted and destroyed the city’s infrastructure, but turned their artillery towards residential neighbourhoods as they were losing ground in the capital throughout March. Furthermore, the conflict incited new waves of ethnically motivated attacks, and violence directed towards non-Arab communities has sparked up, with accusations on both parties of the civil war.

The siege of el-Fasher illustrates the extent of the disaster the conflict has on the Sudanese
population. While over half of Sudan suffers from malnutrition – with 24.6 out of its 46 million
citizens exposed to acute hunger and 637,000 people on the brink of famine – the situation is only amplified in el-Fashe. Supply lines have been cut by the RSF siege on the city, leaving UN food and supply convoys vulnerable and unable to reach their destinations. Human Rights groups like the Committee for Justice and Amnesty International and UN experts accuse the RSF and SAF rebels of weaponising food. UN experts predict that the situation is bound to get worse over time, especially considering the effects of environmental instability – such as recent severe droughts and floods in Sudan – on the ongoing hunger crisis.

Though 600,000 people, over half of which are children, were able to flee el-Fasher, 260,000 people, including about 130,000 children, remain trapped in the besieged city. UNICEF chief Catherin Russell warns about the extent of children’s rights violations in el-Fasher, expressing that “the lives of children are hanging in the balance” amidst the blocking of aid and the continued food scarcity. Since the beginning of the siege, UNICEF have registered over 1,100 grave children rights violations, including the killing and maiming of children but also sexual violence and abduction by different armed groups.

Contaminated water sources have led to a historic outbreak of cholera in Sudan, the worst in decades. There are over 100,000 suspected cases in the country and 2,400 cholera-related fatalities with an epicentre in el-Fasher. The current siege in addition to subsequent power and electricity cuts renders the healthcare system in the city completely inoperant, worsening the epidemic and the conditions of citizens.

Those who have managed to escape el-Fasher are not necessarily better off. The conflict’s rapid spread from Khartoum to other cities in Sudan has led to mass displacement. According to the last available data, over 12 million people have been forcefully displaced in Sudan, not including the refugees already living in neighbouring countries, making this the worst displacement crisis in the world.
Displaced people from both el-Fasher and Khartoum face epidemics, hunger, and other hardships while having access to little or no aid.

The RSF has also besieged the city of el Obeid, a key entry point into central Sudan, as well as Dilling and Kadugli in Kordofan – and the limited aid coming into Sudan can no longer suffice. Despite the gravity of the humanitarian situation in Sudan, the international community remains silent, according to officials from the UN and Amnesty International. UN Health Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus condemned the lack of interest in Sudan’s situation, telling the BBC “I think race is at play here.” Amnesty International has described the international response to the crisis as “woefully inadequate.”

Until 2024, USAID was the main support Sudan received. Therefore, US President Donald Trump’s recent decision of cutting aid directly impacts Sudan. The cuts were radical, with 83 per cent of the staff of USAID dismissed. For its part, the Canadian Government claims to engage itself deeply in humanitarian aid through UN agencies and trusted partners. However, that has been largely insufficient to solve the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

Though the Sudanese conflict has been cast into the shadows in the international press, humanitarian activist groups like UNICEF, Amnesty International, and the International Rescue Committee continue to act to ensure that civilians receive dire aid amidst the siege.

The post Highlighting Sudan’s Humanitarian Crisis appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Thus, the possibility of a ceasefire in Ukraine did not bode well. Even thoughUkrainian forces had stabilized their front after Russian assault groups penetrated Ukrainian territory near Dobropillya, the invaders achieved consequent gains in Pokrovsk and Velykomykhailivka. Thus Russia arrived at the Alaska summit with the upper hand, after a “sudden breakthrough” of their troops in Ukraine days before. Consequently, this advantage did not incite Putin to lower his demands, but instead put him in a position of power  at the negotiation table. 

Indeed, Putin demanded as a condition to end the war that Ukraine surrender Donetsk and Luhansk, giving Russia complete control of the Donbas region. This position was condemned by Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky who, while not present at the summit, has “consistently rejected” the idea of giving up sovereign Ukrainian territory to achieve peace. A peace that would not even last, according to the Ukrainian President, as securing the Donbas would give Russian forces an efficient platform to attack Ukraine further. 

After the summit, President Trump affirmed his belief that he wanted to directly reach a full-fledged peace agreement, deeming an immediate ceasefire unfruitful, despite it being the main demand on Ukraine’s part. However, Trump changed his demands and the following morning announced on his social media, Truth Social, that he was abandoning  his goal of obtaining a ceasefire. He declared that the meeting had been “extremely productive” and did not impose any sanction on Russia. This was after the US President left the meeting without even securing the “easier concessions” he could have squeezed out of his Russian counterpart, such as the release of the abducted Ukrainian children and prisoner exchanges. Trump, despite routinely recognising his disappointment with Putin during peace talks, does not seem to have changed his strategy, and declared before the summit that “I believe he [Putin] wants to get it over.” No significant advance was made regarding peace in Ukraine, and some online have reduced the summit to an unfruitful disappointment. Ivan Us, from Ukraine’s Center for Foreign Policy of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, states that the Alaska summit was only for show, a way for Putin to end his international isolation and return to the world diplomatic stage triumphant. He criticized the “red-carpet welcome” Putin received during the summit as doing  just that. Mustafa Nayyem, Ukrainian ex-Parliament member and Senior Anti-Corruption & Reconstruction Advisor at Pro-Integrity US/UK project, warned about the distinction between diplomacy and “complicity in crime”, condemning the warm welcome Putin received in Anchorage despite being considered a war criminal by the International criminal Court (ICC) since March 2023. 

Despite critiques and confusion after the summit, sources report that President Trump seemed unaffected upon not obtaining a ceasefire. He appeared surprised when Putin mentioned that the next meeting might occur in Moscow, showing how much of an upper-hand the Russian leader had in these negotiations. Moreover, Trump stated that  sanctions were not an urgent matter, and declared that if he had to think about it, it would only be “two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don’t have to think about that right now.” He declared on Fox News that his advice for Ukraine and Zelensky was to “make a deal.” adding, “Russia’s a very big power and they’re not – suggesting  the US President  had little intention of using US power to weigh in at the negotiating table. In other words, President Trump appears to have shifted the responsibility of a peace agreement to Ukraine by not organising a trilateral meeting in the first place. 

Trump later met with Zelensky on Monday August 18 in Washington, DC. Received more courteously than his February visit, President Zelensky was adamant to please President Trump by bringing a gift for the first lady, Melania Trump, saying thank you numerous times and wearing a suit, a change from his usual military attire. This attitude seemed to have a positive impact,  as Trump warmly received his Ukrainian counterpart, even complimenting his suit. 

The main takeaway of Zelensky’s visit in Washington is the potential of direct talks between the Kremlin and Kiev, to which both parties seem to agree for now, despite not guaranteeing any generative  results. This is especially the case with the position of strength – both diplomatic and military –that Russia stands in now. 

The Anchorage summit has left Europeans worried about the extent of US leverage over their security, as testifies Kirill Shamiev, Policy Fellow for the European Council on Foreign Relations. However, last Monday, European leaders Ursula von der Leyen, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Mark Rutte, Friedrich Merz, Giorgia Meloni, and Alexander Stubb accompanied Zelensky to Washington, stepping up to make their voices heard and acting as “bodyguards” to avoid the situation of  this past February, where Zelensky was mocked at his White House visit. If Trump did not outright promise security guarantees for Ukraine or Europe, he recognised the latter as the “first line of defense” and promised “we’’ll be involved.” 

In what way Trump will do this remains to be seen. Yet for now, the status quo is maintained and Putin’s Russia has come out strong in these few days of talk.

The post A One-Sided Russian victory at the Alaska Summit appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This budget cut will have drastic impacts on McGill employment. Staff, whether it be teaching, researching, or maintenance, represent 80% of McGill’s operating expenses, as declared by Christopher Manfredi. That would lead, according to the Montreal Gazette, to about 250-500 jobs being cut. Furthermore, McGill confirmed in the May 16 town hall that it intends to continue its hiring freeze. Christopher Manfredi and Fabrice Labeau, while declaring that the university had to lay off 60 employees in April alone, said this relief was temporary.

In fact, the next few years will prove even more challenging for McGill. The full extent of these government decisions will be felt even more harshly in the next four years, which will be critical for McGill’s survival. “Because we have thrived for 200 years, it may be tempting to assume that no matter what happens, we’ll continue thriving for 200 more,” Provost Manfredi and VP Labreau declared during the May town hall. “But if our deficits mount, McGill’s core academic mission will eventually become untenable.”

Despite the gravity of McGill’s financial situation, the May 16 town hall provided more details on the solutions evoked in February. McGill administratives recognised that cuts and layoffs were needed in the short term, but that it was not a sustainable solution in dealing with the university’s financial difficulties. Thus they introduced the Horizon Plan, a wide initiative to reduce and optimise expenses while salvaging McGill’s finances.

According to the Town Hall meeting, the objective of the Horizon Plan is twofold: finding new sources for funding while using current funds more effectively. This plan poses a number of questions that remain to be answered, notably concerns about the raising of new funds. Focusing on how to most effectively utilize current funds, the town hall brought more insight on the actions McGill plans to take within the next year. Another large part of the Horizon plan is to find ways to streamline the process; to simplify, rationalise, and make more effective McGill’s spending while also avoiding unnecessary expenses.

McGill will be joining Uniforum, a benchmarking platform where universities can compare their service performances with each other. Featuring Australian, British, and Canadian universities, Uniforum will give McGill data to  optimize its use of  its current  expenses. Fabrice Labreau explains that Uniforum will enable McGill to reinvest resources and ultimately improve their services. Last February, McGill started gathering information and data for Uniforum, asking employees of over six months about their experience with  its services, prior to looking at “resource allocation” over the spring and summer. This will build a “clear picture of McGill’s resource usage” before the “first results on satisfaction and resource allocation” are published with Uniforum in Fall; upon which McGill will be able to make decisions regarding budget and finances. 

McGill’s goal is to make its core academic mission tenable again, and to make the university sustainable enough to thrive for many years to come. By “reinvesting,” the university will  shift money from one place to another—in other words, key groups will suffer from this financial plan, even though Fabrice Labreau remained evasive about such consequences in his interview with the McGill Reporter. He claimed we will know the first results heeding from McGill’s inscription to Uniforum in Fall 2025.

For now, it remains unclear whether some departments, services and staff will be durably cut or laid off in McGill’s future years – including student TAs and academic advisors. Yet Labreau remains optimistic despite current challenges. He stresses to students that generating spending efficiencies through the Horizon plan will free up resources to be reinvested into education and research. 

If the economic relief from staff layoffs turns out to be more than “temporary,” the loss of these jobs will durably affect the McGill staff laid off in the past six months. For now, the 60 people who lost their jobs in April will not be the last. While it is unclear how the Horizon Plan will affect student life, the new budget plan will certainly impact academic life for McGill students.

The post McGill’s Horizon Plan: Reinvesting in Our Future appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The following interview has been edited and shortened for clarity.

Aurelien Lechantre for the McGill Daily (MD): Could you begin by introducing yourselves and what you do for OSVRSE?

Jen Collins (JC): Yes, I’m Jen Collins. I’m the educational advisor for OSVRSE, the Office of Sexual Violence Response Support and Education. I’ve been here since August and I do programming, promote things for the office and manage the volunteer team, which are called peer educators. 

Alice Dautigny (AD): And I’m Alice Dautigny. I’m part of the peer educators team at OSVRSE: we are a team of seven student volunteers who give workshops to different groups and clubs from McGill, but  we’re trying to open it up to more students. Thus our work consists in helping organize events, managing the OSVRSE Instagram, and educating the community on how to respond to assault disclosure or situations of sexual violence.

MD: Then would you say the main activity of the office consists in the education aspect through such workshops? 

JC: OSVRSE is first and foremost a support space for those impacted by sexual violence. It’s a central spot on campus for that: we support anybody impacted by sexual violence by creating a safe space. We help people navigate receiving sexual violence disclosures from a friend, and support those who have experienced sexual violence themselves.  Even professors come in and ask about how to make their classroom a more safe and welcoming environment. So we help with accommodation, psychosocial support and counselling, safety planning, etc.

Then our student volunteers do workshops for clubs. Peer-to-peer learning is great because the students understand each other: they know what they’re going through and how to adapt presentations to the audience.

MD: What do these workshops mainly consist of, and what do they entail?  Is it like a class about the subject, the topic you’re about, or is it interactive? Who is your audience?

AD: Most of our audience, until now, is composed of clubs looking to organize events. Usually these events involve alcohol and drinking, so workshops are required for the audience to be able to respond if there’s any issue during their event. The workshops are educational content about several topics that can be interesting for student organizations to be aware of: being an active bystander and responding to disclosure (understanding how to behave if someone during an event comes to you for support). Our workshops are designed to be interactive, with lots of questions, simulations so people can put themselves in the place of an active bystander to prepare for real case situations, looking at real life scenarios, and always a 30-minute Q&A session.

MD: You mentioned active bystanders. What do you mean by that exactly? 

AD: In a workshop context, we like to use the term active bystander to teach participants how to behave when you’re a witness of sexual violence or sexual harassment. So usually it’s looking at our behaviour as witnesses in public spaces and can also be if you witness your friends in toxic relationships with dangerous sexual violence behaviors.

MD: Why do you think it important to comprehend this role of active bystander, specifically on campus?

AD:  I feel like McGill’s campus is both huge and very lively: partying, drinking and meeting people are an inherent part of campus life. Thus it is really important to have associations like OSVRSE and to make sure everyone is aware of the reality of sexual violence at our age.  There’s the beginning of many relationships and discovery of the dating world, so it is important to help prevent and educate people on what is a safe relationship and how to recognise abuse, sexual violence or toxicity — as, unfortunately, sexual violence is a reality for thousands of people, especially students 

MD: Do you think most McGill students are educated on such matters today? Are there other initiatives that OSVRSE has put in place to further education and awareness surrounding sexual violence on campus? 

JC: It is difficult to measure this precisely with stats, but I think “It Takes All Of Us” (“It Takes All of Us” is an online education program about consent and sexual violence, mandatory for every student entering McGill) is great in that aspect. It was created before I came here, but I got to take part in doing it and seeing it in the office. It’s really helpful: I wish I had it when I was in undergrad at my university.

AD: Actually, I heard about OSVRSE through the “It Takes All of Us” form. I looked up who the association was after seeing it in the form, then I saw they were searching for volunteers and  joined! But the other volunteers mostly heard of it through “My Involvement” or directly on the OSVRSE website. 

MD: How and where might we find you? If a student needs support or just wants to participate in a workshop, how can we get to know that? 

JC: You can go online at the OSVRSE website: you could book a workshop, you could see a response advisor, the different possibilities are all on our website and if you don’t see a time slot that works for you, you can always email the office, osvrse@mcgill.ca, and we’ll get back to you within our office hours. 

MD: Do you have anything to add? Perhaps an upcoming event or somewhere we might find you?

JC: Yes! On April 1, in honor of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we are holding a trivia event at Mac campus. There’ll be food and prizes, and it’ll be really fun. We got a lot of local businesses to donate gift cards for raffles and prizes. So we really want to end the year with a big, fun event –  I think everyone loves trivia.

AD: And follow our Instagram (@OSVRSEmcgill) if you want to stay updated and participate in future workshops and events!

The post Highlighting OSVRSE appeared first on The McGill Daily.

However, the Ukrainian armament is still deeply reliant on foreign aid. Military assistance to Ukraine has become central to European and North American foreign policies. Ukraine is blind without Washington’s sharing of satellite images and information transmission, which came to a halt after tensions arose between Trump and Zelensky. Ukraine also does not have an infinite supply of soldiers. Zelensky has already lowered the conscription age to 25 for all men in the country, and reports of dubious enrollment methods have circulated. Russia is better equipped for a lengthy conflict, even though public opinion at home may impact this. Producing most of its armament domestically, it can still count on drones from Iran, as well as ammunition and, reportedly, soldiers from North Korea, estimated at about 12,000 by Ukraine in February of this year.

Trump’s entry into office on January 20 radically changed the diplomatic dynamics surrounding the conflict. During his campaign, he promised to put an end to the war; but, on February 12, he was on the phone with Putin. After Zelensky visited the White House on February 28, Trump attempted to pressure Kyiv into accepting a deal on critical minerals in Ukraine, valued at $500 billion, to “pay back” for US support during the conflict. Though tensions following the Oval Office meeting dissipated, with discussions of American and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah on March 11, this episode demonstrates Trump’s pursuit of American interests first and foremost at the expense of Ukrainians.

Zelensky also expressed concerns over “exclusionary” peace talks between Russia and the US, claiming that the American President is locked in a misinformation bubble and adheres to the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In that same meeting, Trump proceeded to call the Ukrainian President a “dictator” and accused Zelensky of starting the conflict.

Yet, Trump is not the only reason Ukraine cannot rely on its foreign allies. Europe stands divided on military assistance. The UK, France, and Germany remain committed to the Ukrainian people. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged global leaders to “keep the pressure” on Russia, Macron asserted French support for Ukraine, Germany sent additional support with Gepard anti-aircraft systems, to name a few examples.. Nevertheless, the EU rejected the proposed 40 billion Euro assistance plan, only allocating 5 billion Euro to supporting Ukraine — focusing solely on ammunition, rather than humanitarian aid.

It is in this inauspicious context that ceasefire talks recirculated. US envoys met a Russian delegation in Riyadh on March 24, and representatives from Kyiv the next day. The talks focused on a limited ceasefire, ensuring strikes stopped, resuming traffic in the Black Sea, and restricting the targeting of energy infrastructures. Washington seemed rather hopeful in Riyadh, claiming a “positive announcement ” would be made in a few days.

While all three delegations agreed to the limited ceasefire, their understandings of ceasefire conditions seemed to contrast. Zelensky ’s announcement that a ceasefire would take place with immediate effect was followed by news of Russian strikes in Sumy, damaging a school and a hospital while also killing 88 Ukrainians. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister, Andril Sybiha, stated that “Moscow speaks of peace while carrying out brutal strikes on densely populated
residential areas in major Ukrainian cities.” The Kremlin replied that they understood that a ceasefire would only be enacted once certain conditions were met. This, alongside the fact the Kremlin
already broke off 25 ceasefires, explains Ukraine’s deep mistrust in Russia’s respect for the agreement.

In the words of the Guardian, these ceasefire talks and agreements cannot lead to any durable peace in Ukraine. Per the Guardian, the Russian and Ukrainian visions of peace are simply too opposed: the Kremlin asserts authoritative claims to Ukrainian territory and refuses to relinquish what it has already gained territorially, while Ukraine maintains claims of sovereignty, refusing to surrender its territory to Russia.

Peace in Ukraine does not appear possible in any foreseeable future, to the despair of humanitarian activists. War is always ultimately a humanitarian crisis, and Ukraine is no exception. If we talk about world leaders, military strategies and ‘big decisions’, we must not forget that war affects peoples’ everyday lives, impacting millions of Ukrainians and forcing them to flee the country as homes and resources are destroyed.

The post Three Years Later: Peace in Sight in Ukraine? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

However, the last few years have been witness to the emergence of sustainable fashion weeks, extolling eco-friendly practices, promoting sustainability in the sector, and attempting to be more sustainable themselves. For example, the London Fashion Week, in collaboration with the Copenhagen Fashion Week (CPHFW), developed a sustainability requirements framework for participating brands. For Cecilie Thorsmark, CEO of the CPHFW, Fashion Week may “drive positive change within the industry.” Indeed, fashion weeks have long surpassed their role as simple commercial venues. As the major communication events for the whole fashion sector, they have become “highly symbolic public spectacles” reaching a large audience, and thus a platform for activism and political expression. In light of this, Vivienne Westwood advocated for environmental causes through their Homo Loquax runway show at the London Fashion Week of 2019.

On the other hand, these “sustainable” fashion shows seem awfully similar to everything done before. They remain first and foremost a business and an investment that brands make. The New York Fashion Week, rising in attendance in the past few years, saw the cost of running a fashion show explode, with numbers going from the $300,000 spent by Willy Chavarria to $400,000 by Collina Strada.

This brings to mind the danger of greenwashing, a term first coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986 that describes when brands make exaggerated or misleading claims about how environmentally friendly their products or services are. In fact, some think the efforts brands make are, at best, superficial. These accusations may be well-informed: only a few weeks ago, the Danish Consumer Council and Tanja Gotthardsen, an anti-greenwashing expert, filed a complaint against the Copenhagen Fashion Week concerning their sustainability framework. They describe the standards set as abysmally low and not always respected, violating Danish sustainability laws on many points. To this point, Tanja Gotthardsen says, “It made me question whether the requirements were being enforced at all!” Despite the sustainability leadership role the CPHFW seemed to aspire to, sustainability requirements have been used more as a promotional asset for years than as a genuine endeavour.

Sustainable fashion itself also leads to many controversies. With a project to put vintage and upcycling back to the front of the stage, Gabriela Hearst, an ethical fashion designer from Uruguay, put up on this year’s Paris Fashion Week runway a mink coat made from repurposed pythons skins and schappe (leftover fiber from silk cocoons processing). This fuelled the eternal debate between the use of real fur – deemed unethical and cruel – as opposed to the use of synthetic fur, which is highly polluting and impossible to recycle.

Despite this rather grim portrait, there are glimmers of hope within the fashion industry. Some brands, like Stella McCartney, have adopted eco-friendly practices at every stage of production and seem to understand sustainability more and more as a conviction instead of a marketing opportunity. The brand, created in 2001, always incorporated a sustainable and ethical policy.

If traditional fashion weeks have been accused of greenwashing, the emergence of numerous new fashion weeks is not so alarming. These new fashion weeks appear far from western fashion centers, bringing to light not only much-needed ideals but also alternate visions of the fashion industry as a whole. In August 2024, the Costa Rica Fashion Week highlighted eco-friendly fashion through the designer Mauricio Alpizar and his clothes made from acacia fibers. In November 2024, the Sao Paulo Fashion Week revolved around the idea of “slow fashion.” In Nigeria, the Lagos Fashion Week focused on designers from underserved areas and sustainability, with 20 per cent of all products of the fashion shows being recycled or locally sourced.

This testifies to a larger embrace of sustainability in Africa, with Fashion Weeks in Accra, South Africa, or Kenya with the Tribal Chic Nairobi. The African fashion industry does not only follow trends coming from the fashion capitals of London, Paris, or New York, but also creates new trends, giving hope for the rise of new visions of fashion that better respect the environment. This not only improves sustainability in fashion in general, but also reinstates cultural diversity in Fashion and the creative power of Africa, Asia and South America as on par with Europe and North America.

From São Paulo to Lagos, these fashion weeks are enhancing diversity in the fashion world and setting the example for the necessary revolution that the rest of the industry needs to undergo.

The post Marketing Sustainability : Greenwashing in Fashion Weeks appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Upon the publishing of the strategy, François Miller, Executive Director of McGill Sustainability, told the McGill Reporter that “collectively, we are transforming McGill into a world leader in sustainability.” To do so, the new plan focuses on three core domains: climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The university has adopted a bi-chronological approach, with long-term ambitious objectives and more pressing issues to be solved by 2030.

The report first outlines the long-term plan of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040, in balancing the university’s carbon emissions and absorption. In light of this goal, McGill aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45 per cent from those reported in 2015. The university is also looking to increase climate resilience in facing increasing heatwaves, cold temperatures and extreme precipitation, both in frequency and intensity, and plans to address all critical climate risks on campus before 2030.

To remedy biodiversity loss, McGill pledged to become a Nature Positive University in 2022, joining over 500 higher education institutions worldwide in the effort to foster biodiversity on their campuses. Thus, by 2030, McGill plans to foster biodiversity in 30 per cent of our campus’s green spaces. This means managing our green spaces in a more responsible way: adapting mowing frequency, restricting chemical treatment, targeting only invasive species, and adding planting.

McGill is also currently pursuing goals of becoming a zero-waste institution by 2035. The university launched their first reduction and diversion of landfill initiative in 2018. In 2022, McGill created over 700 new sorting stations all over campus and compost stations in key academic buildings to further diminish landfill in 2022. Adopting a new meal plan approach in 2023 was another change made in hopes of lessening waste. The updated Climate Strategy outlines McGill’s goals to divert 70 per cent of landfill waste by 2030 to remain in line with its 2035 zero-waste objective.

Overall, these sustainability goals are consistent with McGill’s previous commitments, as the Climate and Sustainability Strategy for 2020-2025 contained the same core objectives. Indeed, achieving carbon neutrality by 2040, which has been a goal since 2017, and stayed consistently without any reassessment or delay discourse from McGill’s part. In other words, McGill is staying on track with its objectives. Proof of McGill’s continued engagement lies in their achievement of a Platinum STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Ranking System) rating in March 2024: this achievement came six years before the deadline they had set, moving upwards from a silver rating only twelve years prior. The university’s efforts are confirmed when looking at the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) 2024 Sustainable Campus Index, where McGill ranked 8th out of 189 institutions.

However, an integral component of Climate and Sustainability initiatives at universities has to do with research and learning. McGill identifies not only research and learning as its “core mission,” but also the spreading of knowledge it should lead to. This is especially important knowing that Universities Canada warns that many higher education institutions do not communicate their actions or their research efficiently in sustainability. For example, in 2023, McGill established a sustainability module allowing students not only to further understand sustainability, but also showing them how to participate themselves and take action on campus. Learning about sustainability has been incorporated into university life through classes and modules, but also through workshops, clubs, and activities that give students the possibility to engage in a variety of ways.

The role of universities in sustainable development holds far more responsibility than simply making campuses ‘green.’ Evan Henry, Associate Director of the McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI) states that, in setting its carbon neutrality goal ten years ahead of what Canada promised at the 2015 Paris Agreement, “not only are we playing our part, we are showing leadership, for not just Canada but for universities worldwide.” In other words, the new 2025-2030 Climate and Sustainability strategy not only reveals McGill’s ambition and commitment to sustainable development, but sets this same high standard for others. This seems to be a joint effort in Canadian universities: Sherbrooke University, the University of British Columbia, and Thompson River University all have a Platinum STARS rating alongside McGill.

Yet, despite the ambitious long-term goals and the emphasis placed on research and learning, Henry wishes McGill adapted to the “unexpected additional global emissions” and established more “aggressive” goals, as stated in an email to the Daily. Overall, if the new strategy ambitiously covers university action both on campus and beyond, it will become effective in the long-term and may be found lacking in more tangible shorter-term objectives.

The post Ambition and Long Term Emphasis In McGill’s Sustainability Strategy appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The sentiment shared by many is that there is a need to build a more ethical AI domain. In light of this, the subject of “open-source AI” was at the heart of conversations. According to the MIT Tech Review, an open-source AI system is, as the name implies, open to everyone: it can be used for any purpose without special permission or payment. This means that researchers can freely inspect the system’s components and functioning.

Seeing these benefits, Macron announced the launch of Current AI, a foundation aiming to raise $2.5 billion to reshape the landscape of AI. It aims to expand data-set access, develop open-source tools, and make AI more transparent overall, including in measuring its environmental impacts. Along the same lines, tech industry leaders also gathered at the summit and launched Robust Open Online Safety Tools, or ROOST, to develop and provide free open-source safety tools.

While open-source AI was developed to enhance transparency in the domain of artificial intelligence, it also has a negative side: the “open-source” aspect means anyone may use the system “for any purpose,” without any control whatsoever regarding the intentions of the developer. David Evan Harris, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, warns about the dangers of such tools that can create “dangerous information, like a bomb recipe,” deepfakes, and violent pornographic content. Additionally, expanded access to AI tools may deeply weigh on the environment, as the energy consumption of AI is already high.

But if so many countries seek to invest in an AI model that seems to relinquish economic profit, there must be some underlying motives behind this. Open-source AI is viewed as an opportunity to share benefits and stimulate innovation, but also as a way for some countries to “catch up” on AI development. Indeed, fostering investment in AI is “one of the most pressing projects” France wishes to undertake, not so much for the sake of promoting an ethical AI industry but rather to further its own national interests and influence.

What the summit in Paris really showed was that a global race for AI dominance is already well underway, and national interests were at the core of the debates surrounding the development of AI.

In the early weeks of his presidency, the Trump administration broke the 2023 consensus about AI development by massively investing. Trump promised to dedicate $500 billion to the industry, placing the US in a leading position in terms of AI development and research. To add to this, the US refused to sign a regulation declaration to “ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure, and trustworthy.” J.D. Vance, Vice President of the US, declared that excessive regulations could “kill a transformative industry.”

However, this American aggression over AI regulation does not come out of nowhere: the tech rivalry with China has led to a real AI race, with both countries competing to develop the most advanced model. China is successfully expanding its AI industry through the development of state-backed tech giants, and the worldwide success of DeepSeek, one of the AI systems that democratized open-source tools, only confirms their advancement.

As the US and China race for dominance over the AI industry, Europe seeks to enhance its AI capabilities. Thus, during the summit, $150 billion was allocated to “AI Champions” by 20 European corporations, led by General Catalyst, to boost the European AI industry over the next five years. Seizing the opportunity of the summit, Mistral AI, a French start-up, and Helsing, a European defence corporation, announced their partnership to build a European AI defence. Gundbert Scherf, co-founder of Helsing, claimed that “Europe needs to assert its strength as a geopolitical actor, and AI leadership is the key to that strength.” To attract further investment, Henna Virkkunen, the EU digital chief, promised to simplify regulations and make an AI-business-friendly Europe, a sentiment echoed by Macron in his speech.

This “three-way race” for the dominance of the AI industry between the US, China, and Europe does not foreshadow anything good for the average AI user. Driven by economic and national interests, governments seem little inclined to regulate AI systems. Instead, they are preferring to maximize its development through massive investment and minimal regulation – as seen in the US and UK’s refusal to sign the AI regulation declaration of the summit. These developments in the world of AI policy will lead to more intense competition among nations alongside increased technological advancement.

The post AI Summit in Paris: National Interests in a Global AI Race appeared first on The McGill Daily.