Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain cut ties to Qatar

Qatar calls decision by Gulf nations and Egypt 'unjustified', saying allegations against Doha have 'no basis in fact'.

05 Jun 2017 11:30 GMT

 

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and the Maldives say they are severing diplomatic relations with Qatar.

The Saudi kingdom made the announcement via its state-run Saudi Press Agency early on Monday, saying it was taking action for what it called the protection of national security.

The news agency released a statement in which it accused Qatar of "harbouring a multitude of terrorist and sectarian groups that aim to create instability in the region".

READ MORE: Leaders and markets react to Gulf diplomatic rift

 

The three Gulf states gave Qatari visitors and residents two weeks to leave their countries, Reuters news agency reported.

Saudi also closed the border and halted air and sea traffic with Qatar, urging "all brotherly countries and companies to do the same".

The statement appeared to be timed in concert with an earlier announcement by Bahrain, which was similarly cutting ties and halting air and sea traffic between the two countries.

'Unjustified'

Qatar's foreign ministry said it regretted the measures by the Arab nations, calling the decisions "unjustified".

"The measures are unjustified and are based on claims and allegations that have no basis in fact," the statement said, adding that the decisions would "not affect the normal lives of citizens and residents".
"The aim is clear, and it is to impose guardianship on the state. This by itself is a violation of its [Qatar's] sovereignty as a state," it added.

WATCH: What's behind recent media attacks against Qatar? (25:14)

 

Bahrain's foreign ministry issued a statement saying it would withdraw its diplomatic mission from the Qatari capital, Doha, within 48 hours and that all Qatari diplomats should leave Bahrain within the same period.

The UAE said in a statement it was cutting off all ties with Qatar. It also ordered Qatari citizens to leave te country within 14 days and banned its citizens from travelling to Qatar.

Egypt also announced the closure of its airspace and seaports for all Qatari transportation "to protect its national security", the foreign ministry said in a statement.

Later on Monday, the Maldives said in a statement that it took the decision to sever diplomatic ties "because of its firm opposition to activities that encourage terrorism and extremism".

UAE-based carriers Emirates, Etihad Airways and FlyDubai said they would suspend flights to and from Qatar beginning Tuesday morning.

It was not immediately clear how Monday's announcement would affect other airlines.

READ MORE: How Gulf diplomatic rift will affect air travel

 

A Saudi-led coalition which for more than two years has been fighting Iran-backed rebels in Yemen separately announced that Qatar was no longer welcome in the alliance.

Yemen's internationally recognised government also cut ties with Qatar, accusing it of working with its enemies in the Iran-aligned Houthi movement, state news agency Saba reported.

A senior Iranian official said the measures by the Arab nations would not help end the crisis in the Middle East.

"The era of cutting diplomatic ties and closing borders ... is not a way to resolve crisis ... As I said before, aggression and occupation will have no result but instability," Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted, referring to the coalition's involvement in Yemen.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave a statement on Monday while on a state visit in Australia, urging the Gulf states to stay united.

"We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences," he said in Sydney.

"If there's any role that we can play in terms of helping them address those, we think it is important that the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] remain united."

Tillerson said despite the impasse, he did not expect it to have "any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally".

"All of those parties you mentioned have been quite unified in the fight against terrorism and the fight against Daesh, ISIS, and have expressed that most recently in the summit in Riyadh," he added, using alternative names for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.

Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, also called for dialogue to resolve the dispute.
"We see the stability in the Gulf region as our own unity and solidarity," Cavusoglu told a news conference.

"Countries may of course have some issues, but dialogue must continue under every circumstance for problems to be resolved peacefully. We are saddened by the current picture and will give any support for its normalisation".

Hacking dispute

The dispute between Qatar and the Gulf's Arab countries escalated after a recent hack of Qatar's state-run news agency. It has spiralled since.

Following the hacking on Tuesday, comments falsely attributed to Qatar's emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, were broadcast in Qatar.

Qatar's government categorically denied that the comments, in which the country's leader expressed support for Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel - while suggesting that US President Donald Trump may not last in power, were ever made.

"There are international laws governing such crimes, especially the cyberattack. [The hackers] will be prosecuted according to the law," Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Qatar's foreign minister, said on Wednesday.

UAE-based Sky News Arabia and Al Arabiya kept running the discredited story, despite the Qatari denials.

Source: Al Jazeera

ஐக்கிய இலங்கையில் `நுஹ்மான் மாமாக்கள்`!

 Human rights commission urges President to tackle hate crimes
June 2, 2017   10:58 pm

An independent human rights watchdog has urged President Maithripala Sirisena to tackle the alleged hate crime attacks from Buddhist extremist groups targeting the country’s minority Muslim community.

In a letter to Sirisena, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka asked the government to fully implement the rule of law to bring the perpetrators of racial hatred to book.

The commission has urged the president “to take all the necessary actions against the instigators and perpetrators of violence and hate speech targeting the Muslim community”.

Envoys of many countries, including Australia and Canada, have visited a prominent mosque here to express their solidarity with the country’s Muslims who allege that their religious places have come under hate crimeattacks from Buddhist extremist groups.

The Muslim community has been disturbed by an escalation of attacks against them since mid April. Several places of religious practice and Muslim-owned businesses have been attacked, the commission said as it also complained of police inaction in tackling the situation. The commission said that it has been alarmed by the racial hatred and hate speech targeting Muslims.

The letter further states: “The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is gravely concerned about the acts of violence and aggression targeting the Muslim community, which have aggravated in recent days.

The Commission notes that previously similar conduct led to the violence at Aluthgama in June 2014, resulting in the loss of lives and destruction of property. We also do note that to date no meaningful action has been taken to make those responsible for instigating and perpetrating the Aluthgama violence accountable.

The Commission is alarmed at the hate speech conveyed over social media as well as some mainstream media targeting the Muslim community and Islam, which seek to instigate people to commit violence against the Muslim people, their religious institutions and businesses.

The Commission also wishes to bring to the attention of Your Excellency the spate of attacks on places of Christian religious worship in the recent past, which adds to an alarming trend of religious bigotry and intolerance which has gone unchecked.

There is no doubt that such expressions of hate and violence targeting a specific community amount to crimes under the ICCPR Act, No 56 of 2007 and the Penal Code of Sri Lanka. It is necessary that the perpetrators of such acts are apprehended and dealt with according to law. Laws existing on the statute books without implementation have a corrosive impact on the Rule of Law. As such it is essential that these laws are implemented in the best interests of the country.

Both national law and international human rights obligations of Sri Lanka obligate the government to prevent such acts of violence and to take timely action to stop the spread of hate speech, which foster and promote violent conduct. Failure to do so will be a black mark on the human rights record of the country and will be another serious obstacle to the reconciliation process in our country, on which Your Excellency has placed much emphasis.

In these circumstances the HRCSL requests Your Excellency to give urgent directions to Ministry of Law and Order and the Inspector General of Police to take all necessary action against the instigators and perpetrators of violence and hate speech targeting the Muslim community as well as other religious minorities.”

-With inputs from agencies

Fossil fuels have made up at least 80% of U.S. fuel mix since 1900

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,

 

Monthly Energy Review

While the energy history of the United States is one of significant change, three fossil fuel sources—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—have made up at least 80% of total U.S. energy consumption for more than 100 years. Recent increases in the domestic production of petroleum liquids and natural gas prompted shifts between the uses of fossil fuels (largely from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power generation), but the predominance of these three energy sources is likely to continue into the future.

For the first several decades of American history, families used wood (a renewable energy source) as a primary source of energy. Coal became dominant in the late 19th century before being overtaken by petroleum products in the middle of the 20th century, a time when natural gas usage also rose quickly. Since the mid-20th century, use of coal increased again (mainly as a primary energy source for electric power generation), and a new form of energy—nuclear electric power—emerged. After a pause in the 1970s, the use of petroleum and natural gas resumed growth. Petroleum consumption decreased in recent years, but natural gas has continued to provide a greater share of U.S. energy consumption. In the late 1980s, renewable energy consumption (other than wood and hydroelectric) began to appear, increasing significantly in the mid-2000s. In 2014, the renewable share of energy consumption in the United States was the highest (nearly 10%) since the 1930s, when wood represented a larger share of consumption. Renewable energy is a small but growing piece of the U.S. energy mix. The greatest growth in renewables today is in solar and wind power, which along with geothermal and biomass, are included in other renewables.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,

 

Monthly Energy Review

 

Principal contributor: EIA Staff
 

US $200 Billion Fossil Fuel Subsidy You've Never Heard Of

Flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (Credit: Pixabay)  

The $200 Billion Fossil Fuel Subsidy You've Never Heard Of

Amir Jina, Contributor

 

There’s an “alternative fact” that has been prevailing in society. That is that climate change is not happening, or at least not happening due to humans. This view has held strong even though billions of people around the world—including right here in the U.S.—are already experiencing the damaging, costly, and dangerous effects of a changing climate. In the past week, the Trump administration has put this “alternative fact” front and center—taking actions to wipe government websites clean of the words “climate change,” walk back environmental rules,  and limit the effectiveness of the EPA. These are the signs of an administration that is not only hostile towards climate change, but towards science itself.

Now for an actual fact: The costs of climate change are real. Scientists and economists, myself included, may go back and forth on how high the actual cost is, but it is definitely greater than zero. This cost can be summarized by an important number called the Social Cost of Carbon—the cost to society of emitting an extra ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That cost reveals itself in different ways. For example, rising temperatures will lead to more heat-related deaths, and less time in the labor market (more on that in my previous Forbes post).

The U.S. emitted 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2015, with a cost per ton of $36 (the current Social Cost of Carbon). That means the U.S. is paying $200 billion to cover the costs of all the emissions being burned. In effect, it’s a $200 billion hidden subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. This $200 billion is a cost in real money—in lost labor productivity, healthcare costs, increased energy expenditures, coastal damages—that is paid somewhere in the world for each ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted.

The Trump administration has argued that fossil fuels are not on an equal playing field due to “job-destroying regulations.” They’re right about one thing—the playing field is not equal. Numbers on the exact direct fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. vary, but it’s probably on the order of $20 billion being handed out to the fossil fuel industry each year. That’s on top of the $200 billion hidden subsidy they’re already getting for polluting our air and contributing to climate change.

Regulations like the Clean Power Plan and the meager $15.4 billion the U.S. spends subsidizing clean energy are supposed to even out this playing field. But the simplest, most efficient, way for society to make sure it’s a fair game and decrease the damages caused by climate change would be to pay the price for those damages. Doing so would mean the fossil fuel industry would need to pay their fair share, and so would we if we keep using those fossil fuels. There would then be a greater incentive—without subsidies—to transition to clean energy. Emissions would decrease.  And, the price we would have paid to adapt to climate change would get lower over time.

Instead, the opposite is happening. With time, the cost of climate change is adding up, and new costs we didn’t even know about are getting added in as the science behind climate change and its impacts grows. For example, we’re learning a lot more about the impact of major storms on economic growth. This will worsen with climate change. So, the $36 per ton we currently use as the Social Cost of Carbon could be much larger.

The National Academy of Sciences released a recommendation in January to update the process for forming the Social Cost of Carbon, pointing out ways that the newest science can transparently inform this important calculation. This is a crucial effort. Unfortunately, an anti-scientific manipulation of this recommendation would place it, and us, in an uncertain future.

The Social Cost of Carbon is the best scientific and policy tool to level the playing field and fix the current market failure where the fossil fuel industry pays zero. Without it, and a concerted effort to set it at the right price, the uneven playing field will only continue to widen. And, the Trump administration’s early actions to expand fossil fuels only exacerbate this. Not only do those actions not make sense economically, they are also anti-scientific and dangerous. The fact is, if we don’t pay the right price now, we’ll be paying a much greater price in future.

Paris Climate Accord Doesn’t Go Far Enough – but Trump’s Pullout Will Endanger Life on Earth

By Dahr Jamail    Global Research, June 01, 2017      Truthout 31 May 2017

Source: The Guardian / PolitiFact

A large number of climate experts believe the Paris Climate Accord does not go nearly far enough in addressing the crisis of abrupt anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD).

Nevertheless, in what is clearly both a symbolic move and a nod to his fossil fuel backers, Donald Trump will be pulling the US out of the agreement, according to several reports today.

The US, along with nearly 200 other countries, agreed to voluntarily reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in 2015. Interestingly, given the ongoing Russia scandal that is plaguing the White House on a daily basis now, withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement will make the US and Russia the only industrialized countries that reject taking action to mitigate ACD.

Trump has claimed that ACD is a “hoax,” despite the fact that 97 percent of the global scientific community agrees that humans are the cause of our warming planet. The majority of the remaining 3 percent of the scientific community has been shown to be taking funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Trump’s move displays a callous disregard for the future of life on Earth. A recently published study showed that the depletion of dissolved oxygen in Earth’s oceans is occurring much faster than previously believed. Hence, ACD is now recreating the conditions that caused the worst mass extinction event on Earth, the Permian mass extinction that took place approximately 250 million years ago and annihilated 90 percent of life. Dramatic oceanic warming and acidification were key components of this extinction event, and these conditions align with what we are seeing today.

 

In the US, a recent report states that it is “inevitable” that the contiguous US will lose all of its glaciers by 2050, a mere 33 years from now. Data from a January US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report show that the federal government has increased its worst-case scenario for sea-level rise to up to an average of more than eight feet by 2100. That amount of sea level rise will render large parts of many global coastal cities, including several in the US, uninhabitable.

As Trump geared up to pull out from the Paris agreement, scientists have stated the obvious: The Earth is likely to reach dangerous levels of warming even sooner if Trump withdraws the US from its promise to cut CO2 emissions.

Scientists have said that the US withdrawal could add up to 3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on an annual basis. Over time, that will be enough to melt ice sheets faster, trigger more extreme weather events and raise sea levels even more quickly.

One group ran a worst-case computer simulation showing what will happen if the US does not curb its emissions, and found that it would add up to half a degree of warming on its own by 2100.

World Leaders Condemn the Withdrawal but Vow to Move Forward
Global leaders have condemned Trump’s decision.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said talks with Trump at the recent G7 conference in Europe regarding the Paris agreement were “very difficult, if not to say, very unsatisfactory.” After meeting with Trump, Merkel said that Europe needed to unify and work together to take care of itself, given that the US is no longer working with its allies.

Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni also said that Europe needed to forge its own path.

“This takes nothing away from the importance of our trans-Atlantic ties and our alliance with the United States, but the importance we put on these ties cannot mean that we abandon fundamental principles such as our commitment to fight climate change and in favor of open societies and free trade,” he told the media.

In the US, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) tweeted:

“Pulling out of #ParisAgreement is a massive moral, economic & leadership failure for Trump admin. Loss of business, jobs, & intl standing.”

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday that ACD is undeniable and it is “absolutely essential” that the world fight the problem together, and stated that the US should stay on board with the agreement.

“If any government doubts the global will and need for this accord, that is reason for all others to unite even stronger and stay the course,” Guterres told the media during an event at New York University. “The message is simple: the sustainability train has left the station. Get on board or get left behind.”

Environmental Groups Condemn Trump’s Move

Earthworks’ Executive Director Jennifer Krill said Trump’s decision to exit the Paris agreement shows that this administration values fossil fuel industry profits over our health and well-being.

“President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Agreement sends a dangerous signal to the rest of the world that the United States values fossil fuel industry profits over clean energy innovation and the health and well-being of our citizens,” she said in the group’s recent press release. “As the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, turning our back on international climate action damages not only our global reputation on this issue, but the people here at home who suffer from the air pollution that comes along with these emissions. The over 12 million people living within a half mile of an oil and gas facilities deserve action to reduce air pollution, not head-in-the-sand climate denial.”

Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food and Water Watch, went so far as to say that Trump’s move makes the US a “rogue nation.”

In a press release, Hauter acknowledged that the Paris accord falls short of the kind of action that is really necessary, but that it was “better than nothing.”

“By choosing to walk away from the table, the United States effectively becomes a rogue nation when it comes to matters of climate change, human rights and global leadership in general,” Hauter said. “Mr. Trump’s foolish, belligerent decision to abdicate responsibility at the federal level now makes real action on climate at the state and local levels even more critical.”

Hauter added that, for the sake of our planet and future generations,

“It is imperative that elected leaders at every rung of government — from the smallest town halls to the halls of Congress — do everything in their power to resist fossil fuels and help enable a clean energy revolution.”

May Boeve, executive director of the climate organization 350.org, said in a press release that today is a “shameful day,” and called Trump’s move a “travesty” and a “crime against the future of people and the planet.” She assessed the situation as a prioritization of profit over the will of the people.

“The choice they had was clear, and they decided to side with fossil fuel billionaires over the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the agreement,” Boeve said. “By exiting, the administration has isolated the United States from the rest of the world and defamed the US position as global leader on climate action and much more.”

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.
His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now on Amazon.

Dahr Jamail is the author of the book, The End of Ice, forthcoming from The New Press. He lives and works in Washington State.

Featured image: The New York Times

The original source of this article is Truthout

Copyright © Dahr Jamail, Truthout, 2017

Boycott U.S. Firms Till Trump Signs to 195-Nation Paris Climate Agreement

By Eric Zuesse                                                                                   Global Research, June 02, 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump announced, on Thursday, June 1st, that “We’re getting out” of the global agreement on limiting the amount of greenhouse gases pouring into the Earth’s atmosphere. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, had described the agreement (which he had signed), by saying of it: “I believe the Paris agreement can be a turning point for our planet. It’s the biggest single step the world has ever taken toward combating global climate change.” Trump doesn’t place a high priority on the issue, and he says that to adhere to the agreement would hurt America’s economy, which he obviously cares about much more than he does about the planet’s climate. 

 

According to the vast majority of climate-scientists, there will be no way to avoid this planet’s climate-burnout unless the promises of the Paris Climate Agreement are kept. It therefore needs the support of the world’s second-biggest national emitter of greenhouse gases; it needs U.S. President Trump’s support. The world’s biggest emitter, China, is unwavering in its commitment to the agreement. So too is virtually the entire planet — except the U.S.

 

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was approved by the U.S. Senate, and as a consequence of that, no new legislation is required in order for the U.S. to participate in this Agreement, which has since become a part of that Framework Agreement. 

 

The only other gigantic national contributor to global warming gases (20.09% of the total), China, signed the Agreement on 22 April 2016, and is not threatening at all to back out. The United States, the second-biggest emitter, accounts for 17.89% of the total, and likewise signed on that date. But President Trump is withdrawing the U.S. That, however, could lead ultimately to the collapse of the participation of the other 194 countries, maybe even of China’s participation — unravel and destroy the entire global effort to save this planet (from its humans, who thus are obligated to do what we can to reverse our destruction of the planet). 

 

Any intelligent person knows that abandoning this agreement wouldn’t merely be an insult to those other 194 nations; it would also be an insult to our planet. Our grandchildren should hate us if we do that. Unless this nation quickly reverses the course that Trump has chosen, they will hate us for it.

Therefore, I propose a global boycott against the U.S. aristocracy, the U.S. billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations (the people who control the U.S. government). The way to do this would be for an international conference to be held, under U.N. auspices, in order to determine which U.S.-based international corporations are to be boycotted in the first phase, which will be be added in the second phase if need be, etc.; until the U.S. government complies with its global obligation and rejoins the Paris Agreement and is monitored strictly for its compliance with that commitment. If the U.S. then vetoes such a resolution at the U.N. Security Council — since this matter has already been officially recognized by the U.S. government as being crucial to international security — then yet an additional phase of the boycott should kick in, until the U.S. aristocracy buckles.

 

The alternative to such a boycott will be planetary burnout. Which of the two alternatives is preferable? Is the answer to this question not clear?

 

In any event, the alleged reason why Trump decided to end U.S. cooperation with the rest of the world on this, was:

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.”

The appropriate way for the planet to respond to that concern would be to continue the boycott of the products of U.S. headquartered international firms until at least that number, 440,000, of U.S. manufacturing jobs, would be hit by it.

 

Trump announces US withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord (Source: Fox News)

 

However, that ‘440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs’ was the estimate of NERA, which gets its money from the coal, and liquified natural gas, and nuclear, and other established energy-creation industries — all of the dying ones, none of the ones that are becoming increasingly cost-effective, which are the types that would be soaring if the Paris agreement doesn’t break apart. NERA is no scientific information-source; it’s a propaganda-source. Desmog blog reported:

“NERA” is shorthand for National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm SourceWatch identifies as the entity that published a June 2011 report on behalf of coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE’s report concluded, “clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.”

That report went so far to say that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of the coal-generated electricity sector would amount to some 1.5 million lost jobs over the next four years.

NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News. 

According to NERA’s website, the late Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of deregulation,” advised NERA’s 1961 foundation. 

In 2010, NERA published a letter to the New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protest the prospective closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.

A NERA report from earlier this year provided the basis for the popular King Coal refrain that the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and “kill” 180,000-215,000 jobs.

These figures were picked up and cited by climate change denier U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in June when he spoke out against President Barack Obama’s mythological “war on coal,” as well as by the Republican Policy Committee in a May policy paper titled, “Obama’s War on Coal.” 

So, that provides a good indication, as to which types of U.S. international companies would especially need to be included in the first phase of the international boycott. Basically, it’s the type that pay Republican politicians more than Democratic politicians.

 

What other approach than an international boycott, can be effective in order to force such an extremely corrupt nation to do what it must do, for the entire world — to join the rest of the world, in salvaging the entire planet?

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

Featured image: The Atlantic

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2017

US Is the biggest carbon polluter in history, It Just Walked Away!

The U.S. Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History.

It Just Walked Away From the Paris Climate Deal.

 

By JUSTIN GILLIS and NADJA POPOVICH JUNE 1, 2017

NEW YORK TIMES

The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air-conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet.

“In cumulative terms, we certainly own this problem more than anybody else does,” said David G. Victor, a longtime scholar of climate politics at the University of California, San Diego. Many argue that this obligates the United States to take ambitious action to slow global warming.

But on Thursday, President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from a 195-nation agreement on climate change reached in Paris in 2015.

The decision to walk away from the accord is a momentous setback, in practical and political terms, for the effort to address climate change.

An American exit could prompt other countries to withdraw from the pact or rethink their emissions pledges, making it much harder to achieve the agreement’s already difficult goal of limiting global warming to a manageable level.

It means the United States — the country with the largest, most dynamic economy — is giving up a leadership role when it comes to finding solutions for climate change.

“It is immoral,” said Mohamed Adow, who grew up herding livestock in Kenya and now works in London as a leader on climate issues for Christian Aid, a relief and development group. “The countries that have done the least to cause the problem are suffering first and worst.”

Some backers of the agreement argued that the large American role in causing climate change creates an outsize responsibility to help fight it, including an obligation to send billions of dollars abroad to help people in poorer countries.

The Obama administration pledged $3 billion to an international fund meant to aid the hardest-hit countries. Only $1 billion of that had been transferred to the fund by the time President Trump took office on Jan. 20. On Thursday, he pledged to walk away from the balance of the commitment, though Congress may have the last word.

Mr. Trump argued that meeting the terms of the Paris accord would strangle the American economy and lead to major job losses. Many in the manufacturing and fossil fuel industries lobbied for the United States to leave the pact, but corporate opinion has been deeply split. Leaving the Paris deal was a central Trump campaign pledge.

While the United States is historically responsible for more emissions than any other country, it is no longer the world’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gases. China surpassed the United States a decade ago, and its emissions today are about double the American figure. Some of China’s emissions are from the production of goods for the United States and other rich countries.



But the United States has been burning coal, oil and natural gas far longer, and today the country, with just over 4 percent of the world’s population, is responsible for almost a third of the excess carbon dioxide that is heating the planet. China is responsible for less than a sixth. The 28 countries of the European Union, taken as a group, come in just behind the United States in historical emissions.

China has four times as many people as the United States, so the Chinese still burn far less fossil fuel on average than Americans — less than half as much, in fact. The typical American also burns roughly twice as much as the average person in Europe or in Japan, and 10 times as much as the average person in India.

The Trump administration made clear months ago that it would abandon the emissions targets set by President Barack Obama, walk away from pledges of money to help poor countries battle global warming, and seek to cut research budgets aimed at finding solutions to climate change.

Experts say the climate crisis has become so acute that every country has to pitch in to help solve it, with no room for emissions in developing countries to reach the high levels that have been typical of rich countries.

One of the political breakthroughs that led to the Paris agreement was that nearly all the nations of the world came to grips with that reality and agreed to do what they could to help solve the problem. The agreement recognized that the poorest countries could not afford to do much on their own, which is why they were promised extensive financial and technical help.

Energy experts say that poorer countries may be able to develop their economies without depending entirely on fossil fuels, with new technologies like renewable power and electric cars plunging in cost and opening the possibility of a widespread cleanup of the world’s energy system.

“Nobody really wants barrels of oil or tons of coal,” said John D. Sterman, a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a founder of a think tank called Climate Interactive. “They need a warm, dry, safe place to live, and access to healthy food, and lighting when it’s dark.”

If it turns out that those goods can really be provided with clean energy, that may be the economic opportunity of the 21st century — and increasingly, countries like China and India seem to see things that way. Recent analyses by Climate Action Tracker, an alliance of European think tanks, suggest that both countries are on track to beat the targets they set in the Paris agreement, even as the United States backs away.
======================

The New York Times asked Climate Interactive to calculate when Americans would have run out of fossil fuel if the nation’s population had somehow, at the beginning of the industrial era, been allocated a share equal to those of the rest of the world’s people. The calculation was premised on limiting emissions enough to meet international climate goals.

The answer: Americans would have used up their quota in 1944, the year the Allied armies stormed the beaches of Normandy.

Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; country classifications via United Nations
======================
Total CO2 emissions are from fossil fuels and cement production and do not include land use and forestry-related emissions. In the worldwide carbon emissions graphic (middle), Russia data includes the U.S.S.R. through 1991, but only the Russian Federation afterward.

சமரன்: `மோடி மாட்டு` - இறைச்சித் தடை, திரும்பப் பெறு-கழகம...

சமரன்: `மோடி மாட்டு` - இறைச்சித் தடை, திரும்பப் பெறு-கழகம...:   இந்துத்துவ பாசிச மோடி அரசே, இறைச்சிக்கான மாடு, ஒட்டகம் விற்பனை சட்டத்தை திரும்பப் பெறு ! கார்ப்பேரேட் நலன்களை காக்கும், மக்களின்...

புவிக் கோள் காக்க ஏகாதிபத்தியம் ஒழிப்போம்!

SRI LANKA: Climate Change Worse Than Civil War – UN Expert

"Industrialised countries should lead the way as they are the biggest polluters,"

"But unfortunately if the developed world doesnt do anything to mitigate the impact, there little Sri Lanka can do."

SRI LANKA: Climate Change Worse Than Civil War

UN Expert

By Feizal Samath

COLOMBO, Apr 24 2007 (IPS) - As the world prepares for yet another report by the United Nations panel on global warming and climate change, a Sri Lankan specialist in the group says Tamil rebels and government troops are actually fighting over land due to be submerged as sea-levels rise.

A major part of Jaffna and other northern areas (of Sri Lanka) will be submerged when the sea-level rises. So people are fighting and dying over areas that may soon not be there, Prof. Mohan Munasinghe, vice-chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told IPS in an interview.

Jaffna, seat of a revolt for an independent homeland for minority Tamils, lies on the northern tip of the island. Northern and eastern coastal areas, both claimed by the rebels as traditional Tamil homelands, are vulnerable to submersion as they are flatter than other coastal areas.

The vulnerability of the north and east was highlighted during the Dec. 26, 2004 Asian tsunami when these areas bore the brunt of the damage caused by the killer waves that hit the island, following an undersea earthquake off the coast of Indonesia Sumatra island.

Munasinghe, known internationally for his work on energy and sustainable development, says climate change in Sri Lanka will have dire consequences on water, agriculture, health and the coast. "Already there are early signs of the impact which would assume serious proportions by 2025," he said. "But unfortunately if the developed world doesnt do anything to mitigate the impact, there little Sri Lanka can do."

IPCC is releasing the third volume of its 4th assessment report in Bangkok on May 4. Since the first one came out in 2001, IPCC reports have been closely scrutinised by policymakers across the world, but action has been painfully slow in tackling the problem of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and carbon dioxide emissions that are said to cause global warming.

The biggest culprits are the United States and Europe through their fossil fuel industry and its powerful lobbies.

Providing a peek review of the forthcoming report Munasinghe, a former World Bank who has advised several Sri Lankan governments on energy issues, said among the key messages would be the need to take immediate action to mitigate or reduce GHGs.

The report will also focus on the methods and technologies to make this early start and provide clear signals to industry to develop the technologies to make such a change. "Industrialised countries should lead the way as they are the biggest polluters," he said, adding that the Europeans clearly recognised these concerns earlier this year. "Thus there is now some action in the developed countries," he said.

The IPCC vice-chairman is frustrated at the general apathy of countries in dealing with global warming despite the fact that some of the best experts in the world prepare the reports on global warming. The latest one has contributions from 3,000 scientists.

"No one takes it seriously because it is something that does not happen today or tomorrow. The biggest culprits are the rich countries…so it difficult to take action," he said, adding that one of the weaknesses in the campaign is the inability of scientists to translate their jargon into language that is understood by everyone, including politicians.

The world response to global warming has been very slow. When IPCC first report, released in 1990, provided scientific evidence to show the existence of GHGs that can alter the climate, the public was sceptical. The second report dealt with the impact of GHGs, the impact on humans and need for mitigation.

The third report in 2001 focussed on vulnerability and adapting to situations. It said even if there were zero emissions, what is already in the atmosphere would cause global warming and impact mostly on tropical countries, and thereby the poor. Experts say even in rich countries it is the poor that are affected by global warming – as the impact of Hurricane Katrina in the U.S. has shown.
More than 80 percent of the emissions that cause climate change come from rich countries with lifestyles and development that cause the problems. The per capita emissions of countries like India or China, despite being large, are a mere 1/30th or 1/40th of what is emitted by the U.S. or Europe.
Munasinghe says his argument, made during a presentation at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, that there is a strong need for integrating climate change and longer term issues into sustainable development strategies has become a reality today. "Sustainable development is the way out… starting with the industrial nations," he said.

In the Sri Lankan scenario, population shifts where the country would have a bigger aging population in 20 years will exacerbate the problem since health is one area where the impact would be high.
"Remember malnutrition and disease affects mostly children and older people. An aging population means there would be fewer people to carry the burden as well and all these would be vulnerable. Productivity will get affected because there are fewer young people," he said.

Sri Lanka expects that over the next two decades the sea-level will rise by half a metre with dry areas becoming drier and wet areas becoming wetter, leading to floods in some areas and drought in others.
Earlier this month, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of IPCC, said at a press conference in New Delhi that up to 60 million coastal people in the low-lying areas of South Asia could be displaced by global warming by the end of the 21st century.

Especially vulnerable, said Pachauri, are the coastal metropolises of Mumbai and Kolkata which are already showing signs of strain on their drainage systems and infrastructure.

India could be most seriously affected by scantier rainfall and by glacier melt in the Himalayas which supply the river systems on which agriculture depends, Pachauri said, adding that glacier melt could also seriously affect China.

According to Pachauri the impact of global warming on India, where almost 700 million people are dependent on agriculture, would be really serious and trigger mass migration of rural communities to urban areas in search of alternate livelihoods.

The most frightening prospect for Sri Lanka is also in agriculture. We have done some studies with the meteorological department which show higher temperatures and less water, said Munasinghe. This will result in paddy farming output falling by 20-30 percent in the next 20 to 30 years. The output will begin to drop gradually over the next few years.

The other issue is that of equity, says Munasinghe, in the wet zone where the hill country is filled with tea bushes – the tea crop will increase making those workers well off. While paddy is cultivated mostly by farmer-families in which the cost of production is much higher than the selling price, tea workers are assured of their monthly wages even if tea companies find production costs higher than selling prices. Tea is generally a profitable crop.

He says in the hotter areas mosquitoes will be more rampant and even move into the more hilly areas. Thus the incidence of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue in endemic areas could increase in addition to diseases triggered by poor quality water that accompanies droughts.
============
Feizal Samath - Chairperson

Feizal Samath is an experienced journalist with a career spanning over 30 years. He has worked for major Sri Lankan newspapers and international news agencies Reuters (Colombo and India) and Bloomberg (Colombo), covering sports, culture, entertainment, law, politics, business, and development and social issues. He is currently Business Editor of a leading Colombo Sunday newspaper.

Feizal is also a correspondent for Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency in Colombo reporting essentially on development news and features, and is a contributor to some Middle East newspapers.
He is a social activist working on helping children in need, and supports causes relating to poverty and women's' empowerment. His special interest is music and he has helped raise money for children's charities through UNICEF and Save the Children by organizing annual country and folk music concerts titled Country Roads since 1988 through his non-profit organization, the Country Music Foundation (CMF).