The rich man promptly hired workers to cover everything in sight in green paint so that he could easily follow the peculiar prescription. Ten days later, when the wise man returned in his saffron robe, a worker hurried over to douse him in green paint as well.

The Nation-State vs. The Climate

READ MORE

“You have wasted so much money through your monumental stupidity,” the paint-splattered sage upbraided the rich man. “If only you had purchased a pair of green spectacles, worth perhaps four rupees, you could have saved these walls and trees and pots and pans and chairs and sofas and also a pretty large share of your fortune.” The sage drew himself up to his full height to deliver his final message: “You cannot paint the world green!”

The moral of this  is simple. You cannot change the world. You can only change the way you look at the world. Perception is everything.

This cautionary tale is particularly ill-suited for these modern times. With the climate crisis pressing down upon the planet, humanity must change the world or face extinction. Figuratively speaking, we must indeed paint the world green — and ignore the so-called wise men who tell us just to put on green-colored glasses.

In the real world, this choice boils down to either shrinking the global carbon footprint or succumbing to a form of “greenwashing” that offers only an illusory environmental protection. The Biden administration faces this same choice. Will it spend a lot of money to help paint the world green or just hand out tinted lenses, whether green or rose, to make us all think that the planet has been saved?

How Green Is His Policy?

The first task for the Biden administration has been to clean up the toxic waste dump of the previous presidency. That has meant rejoining the 2015 Paris climate deal, canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and restoring the many environmental regulations that former US President Donald Trump gutted. The new administration has put a pause on new oil and gas drilling on federal lands. It has reversed Trump’s effort to weaken the Clean Air Act. It has supported an international agreement to end the use of hydrofluorocarbons. In all, the administration is looking to roll back around 100 of Trump’s  to favor business over the environment.

These moves will bring the United States back to the status quo ante. The administration, however, has more ambitious plans. In his January 27 executive order on “tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad,” President Joe Biden laid out a detailed list of initiatives that runs over 7,500 . The very fact that the order addresses the “climate crisis” and not just “climate change” is an important signal of the seriousness with which the administration takes this issue.

The order begins with these words: “We have a narrow moment to pursue action at home and abroad in order to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of that crisis and to seize the opportunity that tackling climate change presents. Domestic action must go hand in hand with United States international leadership, aimed at significantly enhancing global action. Together, we must listen to science and meet the moment.”

To this end, the administration has declared that the United States will become carbon-neutral by 2050, which will require steep cuts in emissions. “We need to increase tree cover five times faster than we are,”  John Kerry, Biden’s special envoy for climate. “We need to ramp up renewable energy six times faster. And the transition to electric vehicles needs to take place at a rate 22 times faster.”

But like its initial promise to vaccinate 100 million people in 100 days against COVID-19, the administration is already being pushed to do better. Other countries are competing to become carbon-neutral faster: Sweden has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2045, Austria and Iceland have more set 2040 as their goal, Finland is looking at 2035, and both Norway and Uruguay expect to achieve the mark by 2030. ,  and  have all committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 as well. General Motors  at the end of January that it would sell only zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

A key component of the US race to carbon neutrality is the Biden administration’s version of a Green New Deal. This “clean energy °ů±đ±ą´Ç±ôłÜłŮľ±´Ç˛Ô”&˛Ô˛ú˛ő±č; for investing $400 billion over 10 years into transforming the US economy along sustainable lines, creating 10 million good-paying jobs in the clean energy sector and putting environmental justice at the center of these efforts.

But the administration can do just so much with executive orders and through federal  like the Department of Energy. At some point, Congress must decide whether the next four years will be world-transforming or just greenwashing.

But Congress — especially the Senate — is a problem. It’s going to be difficult to persuade Republicans as well as Democrats like Joe Manchin, who represents the coal-mining state of West Virginia, to sign on to anything truly transformative. But tax credits for wind power and solar energy were included in the December 2020 stimulus package, which Republicans backed. And Manchin is already the American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act, which provides tax incentives to businesses that switch over to clean energy products. Also in the is a Civilian Climate Corps, modeled on a similar New Deal-era initiative, that would enlist the unemployed and underemployed to help with such tasks as reforestation and protecting biodiversity.

It will be hard to move Congress on this domestic agenda. The international component may be an even tougher sell.

Going Green Internationally

At least on paper, the Biden administration intends to make the climate crisis a way of reshaping much of US foreign policy. The January 27 order reads: “It will be a United States priority to press for enhanced climate ambition and integration of climate considerations across a wide range of international fora, including the Group of Seven (G7), the Group of Twenty (G20), and fora that address clean energy, aviation, shipping, the Arctic, the ocean, sustainable development, migration, and other relevant topics.”

The first challenge for the new administration will be to put its money where its mouth is, and one example of that is its contributions to the Green Climate Fund. Established in 2010 to assist poorer countries transition away from fossil fuels, the fund raised about $7 billion out of the $10 billion initially pledged. A major reason for the shortfall was the US, which  but delivered only $1 billion. At the end of 2019, the fund put out another call to replenish its coffers and received pledges of another $9.8 billion.

Kerry has already  that the United States will make good on its previous commitment by sending $2 billion to the fund. But he has made no mention of US support for the additional replenishment. Climate campaigners have  on the administration to double its original commitment, as a number of European countries plus South Korea and New Zealand have done, and top up its contributions to $9 billion total. Such a firm action by the US might not only persuade other countries to achieve this higher standard but also pressure outliers like Russia and Australia to join the effort in the first place.

The more immediate problem, however, will be the rising levels of debt, particularly in the Global South, that the COVID-19 pandemic has turned into an acute crisis. A number of — Zambia, Costa Rica, Sri Lanka, Brazil — have either defaulted on their loans or are close to it. Meanwhile, the fiscal crisis of poorer countries has pushed several to consider abandoning climate and environment-friendly restrictions on such harmful sectors as industrial mining in order to make financial ends meet. International financial institutions have suspended debt repayments for the world’s poorest nations and are considering various remedies, including the provision of more Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to the worst-off countries through the International Monetary Fund.

It’s unclear where Biden stands on debt relief or cancellation. But the January 27 executive order on the climate crisis  the following provision: “[D]evelop a strategy for how the voice and vote of the United States can be used in international financial institutions, including the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, to promote financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and debt relief initiatives that are aligned with and support the goals of the Paris Agreement.” It’s possible that the administration will, instead of debt cancellation, promote some form of  or  swaps, preferably in versions that include a greater range of stakeholders including indigenous groups, or perhaps back the  linked to performance on green indicators.

The climate crisis will also affect how the United States negotiates trade agreements. Biden’s appointments to key trade positions suggest that he will be  labor and environmental concerns at the center of US policy. As a presidential candidate, Biden urged making future trade deals contingent on countries meeting their commitments under the Paris agreement, and members of Congress are  the new president to change the US-Canada-Mexico trade deal to reflect this condition. Another potential option is a fossil fuel export ban, for which Biden has  some support.

The new president is planning to hold a Global Climate Summit on Earth Day next month, though it’s unclear how such a meeting would differ from the one held in December 2020 to mark the fifth anniversary of the Paris agreement. Climate campaigners are  the administration to use this opportunity to focus on “super pollutants” such as methane, black carbon, and HFCs, which contribute disproportionately to global warming.

In the meantime, preparations for COP26 — the UN climate change conference — are beginning for November in Glasgow, UK. The hostility of the Trump administration and the divided attention span of the Biden team — not to mention the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic — may compromise the efficacy of the UN meeting. The Paris agreement came together because of 18 months of intensive preliminary . A similar effort to forge a pre-meeting consensus for COP26 has been slow to emerge.

The Biden administration has made commitments on other environmental issues. It has endorsed a “30 by 30” initiative: protecting 30% of US lands and coastal areas by 2030. This effort would require setting 440 million more acres of land for conservation. This pledge, part of a global campaign to preserve biodiversity, would require a significant scaling back of extraction activities on federal lands.

Cooperation between the US and China is critical for any global environmental effort to move forward. China is currently the leading emitter of carbon in the world, with nearly twice the rate of the United States at number two (though the US still  in terms of cumulative output over time and per-capita carbon footprint). During the Barack Obama years, the two countries created the Clean Energy Research Consortium (CERC), a public-private initiative that spurs research and development in several energy-related sectors. Renewing CERC would be a first step in boosting U.S.-China cooperation.

Greening national security can and should go well beyond superpower cooperation. The US currently  $81 billion a year to protect global oil supplies, according to one estimate. The bulk of that money should instead go toward ending reliance on fossil fuels. If access to oil becomes less dependable, that would be an even greater incentive for US allies to accelerate their own transitions to renewable energy.

An Administration in Search of a Doctrine

Presidential doctrines have always presented different ways of preserving US global power. The Nixon doctrine was about protecting allies. Jimmy Carter vowed to defend US national interests in the Persian Gulf. Ronald Reagan promised to push back against the Soviet Union worldwide. George W. Bush emphasized unilateral US military action. Donald Trump went on and on about “making America great again.”

Joe Biden has an opportunity to adopt an entirely different kind of doctrine. He should make explicit what is now implicit in his executive orders, that environmental sustainability will hereafter be the major litmus test for American foreign policy. If this happens, it will be the first time that a presidential doctrine focuses on the good of the planet and not just the good of the United States.

I’m sure that plenty of foot-draggers in Congress, industry and the media are just waiting for Biden to have his “sweater moment,” an updated version of the televised address when President Carter famously tried to elevate the energy crisis of the late 1970s into a larger discussion of morality and malaise. They will want to paint Biden as a green opponent of the working stiff, a clueless globalist, an America-laster. So, perhaps it’s best for Biden to avoid grand statements of doctrine for the moment and focus instead on painting US foreign policy green, issue by issue.

The fate of the United States has never been more linked — virally, environmentally, economically and existentially — to the fate of the rest of the world. As such, there hasn’t been a better moment for an American president not just to look at the planet differently, but to join hands with other countries to make it greener.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post The Quest to Paint the World Green appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Greenhouse gases produced as a result of anthropogenic activity such as the burning of fossil fuels and industrial processes are being at rates higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years. The resulting greenhouse effect is destabilizing the planet’s climate in hazardous ways. Extreme weather events are now more frequent and violent than ever. Heatwaves, droughts, blizzards, hail storms and floods are occurring with greater intensity, exacerbating poverty and forced migration. 2019 was the hottest year on record, with nearly 400 unprecedented instances of high temperatures in the northern hemisphere last summer alone.

Will Millennials and Zoomers Save the Future?

READ MORE

Aside from the loss of biodiversity, the disappearance of small island nations and the proliferation of new diseases, climate change is currently responsible for the of 150,000 people annually, and will expectedly 250,000 fatalities per year between 2030 and 2050. This is a wake-up call for societies, lured into complacency by technological advances, that our lifestyle and consumption patterns are not sustainable.

In this edition of The Interview, 51łÔąĎ talks to professor Ashok Swain, UNESCO chair of International Water Cooperation at Sweden’s Uppsala University, about the human rights impacts of climate change, the ensuing conflicts over resources, and the interplay between global warming and poverty.

The text has been lightly edited for clarity.

Kourosh Ziabari: According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “have an affirmative obligation to take effective measures” to mitigate the impacts of climate change on human rights. With political, economic and security concerns that are consuming resources, coupled with the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, do you think enough is being done to address climate change and its human rights implications? If states have an “obligation” to combat climate change, how is it possible to make sure they are living up to those commitments?

Ashok Swain: Both climate change and COVID-19 are global crises and [are] interconnected. Degrading ecosystems, unsustainable lifestyles and declining natural resources have led to a pandemic like COVID-19. Thus, the world should not forget the threats of climate change while confronting the pandemic. Adding to these two serious crises, human rights are increasingly under threat, and civil and political rights of people are growingly compromised in a world that is witnessing a democratic decline. Climate change has multiplied the human rights crisis in a more unequal and undemocratic world by causing threats to human health and survival, food and water shortages, and weather-related disasters resulting in death and destruction of property. A healthy and robust environment is fundamental to the enjoyment of human rights.

The world has been committed for 72 years to the observation and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and these principles have been at the heart of international agreements. Unfortunately, there is a huge gap that exists between the international commitments on human rights and climate change, and the national policies adopted by the countries. Climate change and policy responses to meet its challenges will have a significant impact on the human rights of millions of people.

The world is also witnessing the climate justice movement in a big way. Only comprehensive and collaborative actions by the states in line with protecting human rights will make it possible for the planet to meet these unprecedented challenges. Countries must commit to ambitious climate mitigation targets to keep the global average temperature increase within a manageable limit. Countries providing climate mitigation assistance and those receiving the support must commit to protecting human rights.

They must incorporate human rights norms into their domestic legal frameworks. While countries need to take important steps toward fulfilling their obligations at home, they need to work cooperatively with other countries to combat climate change and ensure the protection of the human rights of people across the world.  

Ziabari: As reported by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, more than 60% of the world’s population on agriculture for survival, and 12% of the total available lands are used for cultivating crops. In what ways does climate change impinge on the development of economies that are centered around agriculture? 

Swain: Though the impact of climate change is very comprehensive, its effects on the agriculture sector are easy to notice. Changing rainfall patterns and rising average temperatures due to climate change affect agriculture and those who are dependent on it in a very big way. Floods, droughts, new pests and weed problems add more to their woes. Climate change brings food insecurity through its impacts on all aspects of global, regional, national and local food production and distribution systems. It severely affects the people who are already poor and vulnerable, and dependent on an agriculture-based economy, but the risk and vulnerability are gradually going to shift to other economies.

However, while most tropical, arid and semi-arid regions are likely to experience further agricultural production losses due to rising temperatures, food production in the temperate developed part of the world is expected to benefit in the short term from a warmer climate and longer growing seasons.

With climate change, increasing natural disasters, recurring droughts, salinity intrusion into water systems and massive floods are invariably affecting agricultural production and resulting in food shortages in developing countries. Increasing agricultural production for a growing population while facing climate change has become a major challenge for these agricultural economies as they already face serious shortages of freshwater supply and arable land. High concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the number of nutrients such as zinc and iron in rice and wheat, and bring harmful effects on people in the countries whose diets are highly dependent on these crops.

The adverse effects of climate change on food security, health and economic wellbeing in the agriculture-dependent countries are undermining their ability to achieve their sustainable development goals in a big way. 

Ziabari: Small size, remoteness, insularity and susceptibility to natural disasters are some of the challenges faced by island nations. Last year, the Maldives’ environment minister  that for small island nations, climate change is not only a threat, but its impacts are already being felt. What is at stake for the island nations as a result of global warming and extreme weather conditions? Do you agree that for these regions, climate change poses an existential threat?

Swain: If the present trend of greenhouse gas emission continues, the UN climate science panel warns against the possibility of sea-level rise up to 1.1 meters by 2100. The rise of the seawater level to this magnitude will not only inundate large areas in the highly populated low-lying countries but also can potentially submerge many small island states in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Way back in 1987, the then-president of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdool Gayoom, made an emotional appeal at the UN General Assembly that a sea-level rise of only one meter would threaten the life and survival of all his countrymen. More than three decades have passed, and the threat of several small island countries disappearing from the global map altogether looks more real than ever before.

While they are not underwater yet, these small island countries are already facing the impact of climate change in various ways. In these countries, most human settlement and economic activity take place in coastal areas. Climate change-induced coastal erosion has already brought significant changes in their human settlement patterns and socioeconomic conditions.

Coral reefs play a big role in the wellbeing of the small island countries by supplying sediments to island shores and restraining the impact of waves. Unprecedented coral bleaching due to increased water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration are adversely affecting the reef systems, which is critical for these small countries. Changing rainfall patterns, decreasing precipitation and increasing temperatures have also presented critical challenges for the freshwater supply on these islands and to their food security.

Frequent climate change-induced natural disasters like hurricanes and floods are also bringing devastation to their economy and infrastructure. And also, these severe weather-related events affecting their key tourism sectors. Climate change will affect every country in the world, but small island nations are most vulnerable to its impacts.

Ziabari: Is it accurate to say that climate change effects are disproportionately burdening the developing and low-income countries, and that nations in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia are making up for the shortcomings of the developed, industrialized world in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the goals set by the Paris Agreement?

Swain: Despite disagreement and debates, science is now unequivocal on the reality of climate change. Human activities contributing to greenhouse gases are recognized as its primary cause. It is a serious irony that people and countries that suffer most from climate change have done the least to cause it. The 52 poorest countries in the world less than 1% of global carbon emissions.

The poor and the powerless have very little say in the actual climate negotiation process. Several disagreements had kept the countries of the world away from a global treaty. The primary contentions had been over how much and how fast countries were going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and, upon reaching an agreement, who would monitor it. However, to address global climate change, 194 countries of the world have finally come to an at the Paris Climate Conference on December 12, 2015. [To date, all of the world’s have signed the accords, with the US set to rejoin the agreement after the Biden administration assumes office next year. — 51łÔąĎ] In Paris, industrialized countries also promised to mobilize $100 billion to support carbon emission cuts and climate adaptation.

The Paris Agreement signals the turning point for the world on the path to a low-carbon economy — not only to cut the carbon emission but also to provide financial and technological support to poor developing countries for climate mitigation. However, the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement has been a serious setback, but, hopefully, it will return to it soon after the change of administration.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, in which only rich industrialized nations had climate mitigation targets, the Paris Agreement includes every country. Though the ratifying countries to the Paris Agreement enjoy the independence on how to lower their carbon emissions, it is binding on them to report their progress. It is true that developing and low-income countries are asked to do their part to mitigate climate change even if they had no role in contributing to climate change. However, the global fund [created] by rich industrialized countries is going to somewhat address this injustice by providing financial support to the most vulnerable countries and also helping them with clean environment technologies for climate change mitigation.

Ziabari: Water stress levels are high in parts of northern Africa, Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Indian subcontinent. How can the lengthy periods of drought and variability of water supply in these regions lead to conflicts and violent uprisings? Can we think of water as a determining factor in the political stability of nations in the 21^st century? 

Swain: The world is already experiencing a serious global water crisis. More than 40% of the global population is suffering from water scarcity and, by 2050, an additional 2.3 billion people from Asia, Africa and the Middle East are expected to live in serious water stress. Climate change is expected to seriously aggravate the water scarcity problem in these regions. Moreover, the increase of global surface temperature due to the greenhouse effect is expected to lead to more floods and droughts due to more intense, heavy precipitation. Not only floods and droughts are going to be frequent in the future, but even recent studies have also confirmed that climate change is already contributing to more intense precipitation extremes and the risk of floods.

As climate change brings changes to water supply and demand patterns, the existing arrangement of sharing water resources between and within countries in arid and semi-arid regions are likely to be more and more conflictual. There is no doubt that the projected impacts of global climate change on freshwater may be huge and dramatic, but they may not be at the same intensity and follow a similar periodic pattern in each region.

Climate change is also likely to cause extreme weather events, changing sea levels or melting glaciers that can generate serious threats to existing freshwater management infrastructure. It is easy to foresee that climate change will force comprehensive adjustments in the ongoing water management mechanisms as they need to have the flexibility to adjust to the uncertainties. The emerging unprecedented situation due to changes in climatic patterns requires countries and regions to cooperate and act collectively. There is no doubt that climate change poses extreme challenges to water sharing, and it has all the potential to create political instability and violent conflicts. Thus, climate change requires countries to have more flexible, hands-on politically smart management of their water resources.

Ziabari: Walk us through the interplay between climate change and poverty. Does the current pattern of the Earth getting warmer and extreme weather episodes unfurling more frequently have the potential to tip more people into hunger, unemployment and poverty? What do scientific forecasts say?

Swain: With sea-level rise, the world is also expected to witness serious storm surges in regular intervals as tropical cyclones will combine with higher sea levels. This is likely to enhance the risk of coastal high flooding, particularly in the tropics. Climate change also threatens to change the regular rainfall patterns, which can potentially lead to further intensive flooding, drought and soil erosion in tropical and arid regions of the world. Food production is going to be further affected due to extreme weather, unpredictable seasonal changes and wildfires. The Fourth National Climate Assessment Report of the US Global Change Research Program in 2018 warns that heatwaves, drought, wildfire and storms will increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity, bringing serious food insecurity and loss of farming jobs. 

Different countries and societies are responding to and will cope with climate change-induced food insecurity and economic decline differently. Existing cultural norms and social practices will play an important role in formulating their coping mechanisms. Some countries and societies are better at planning and implementing adaptation strategies to meet the hunger and unemployment challenges posed by climate change. The effectiveness and coping abilities of existing institutions of the countries also play a significant role.

No doubt that the adverse impact of climate change will be more severe on the people who are living in the poor and developing economies. Climate change will not only force more people back to poverty, but it can increase the possibility of more violent conflicts, particularly in societies and countries affected by poor governance, weak institutions and low social capital.

Ziabari: Since 2008, nearly 24 million people have been annually on account of catastrophic weather events. One of the concerns scholars raise about these climate refugees is that they lack formal recognition, definition and protection under international law. What is the most viable way to help them?

Swain: Global warming leads to sea-level rise and that is taking away the living space and source of livelihood of millions of people. There are many estimates regarding the size of the climate-induced population migration the world is going to witness in the future. For the last two, three decades, several forecasts have been made, but there are no reliable estimates of climate change forced migration as the future forecasts vary from 25 million to 1 billion by 2050. Not only there is a lack of any agreement over the numbers on climate migration, there is also no clarity on how many of them will move beyond their national borders. But there is no doubt that climate change will displace a large number of people and will force them to move to other countries in search of survival.

However, climate or environment-forced migration is not included in the definition of a refugee as established under international law, which are the most widely used instruments providing the basis for granting asylum to persons in need of protection. International refugee agencies in the past have not been able to save the lives of many environmentally displaced people in the south due to the absence of their mandate.

In this context, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of New Zealand is quite significant. Though the court recognized the genuineness of a Kiribati man’s contention of being displaced from his homeland due to sea-level rise, it could not grant him refugee status, reasoning that he wouldn’t face prosecution if he would return home. So, there is a need for the definitional fiat of “refugee” to be expanded to address the increasing challenge of climate-forced population displacement and possible international migration.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Climate Change Will Impact the Human Rights of Millions appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The science is clear on climate change. Looking back at this past year, we’ve witnessed how climate change has manifested in more extreme weather, from record-breaking hurricanes, storms and flooding to heat waves, droughts and wildfires. Scientists have linked climate change to human activity and emphasized that the problem will not go away on its own. Instead, it will take a global, concerted effort to mitigate the impact of climate change today, while staving off its worst effects in the future.

In October 2018, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the planet would face “catastrophic” climate change if we do not dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The planet’s has risen about 0.9°C since the late 19th century. Most of that warming has taken place since 2010, registering five of the warmest years on record.

Global initiatives like the Paris Climate Agreement have sought to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C of pre-industrial levels, as even half a degree Celsius higher — which, if we continue emitting at our current rates, we’ll hit by 2030 — would have a devastating, irrevocable impact on the planet’s climate. has put together a graphic that depicts the difference between a 1.5°C and 2.0°C increase in temperature, which soberly describes as a weather forecast “from hell.”

Despite growing evidence backing man-made climate change, some people continue to reject the science, and political leaders lack the will to make substantive change in curbing carbon emissions. Leaders like US President Donald Trump have called climate change a hoax. During his annual Earth Day address in April, Trump managed to talk about environmental protection without once referring to climate change. And Donald Trump isn’t alone. Governments around the world have ignored, denied or understated the impact of climate change in favor of maintaining profitable production of fossil fuels — the most egregious culprit when it comes to global warming.

Nonetheless, climate anxiety is rightfully on the rise among the general public. This past year we’ve seen greater public participation in grassroots movements demanding more action against climate change, particularly among youth. In March, 1.5 million students in 123 countries walked out of their classrooms to participate in a global in what was the largest youth-led environmental protest in history. The movement, led by 16-year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, called on political leaders to respond to climate change with greater urgency. In April, the Extinction Rebellion movement staged rallies, die-ins and acts of civil disobedience around the world to call for climate action.

In this edition of the Interview, 51łÔąĎ talks to Arek Sinanian, an expert on climate change and the author of , about what drives climate change skepticism, and the role that individuals and governments can play in halting global warming.

The text has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dina Yazdani: The IPCC reported last October that if we don’t make significant strides in curbing global warming by 2030, we could face catastrophic climate change. So what does catastrophic climate change look like?

Arek Sinanian: Yes, I think the word “catastrophic” is a big word — it means different things to different people — and it’s a very general term. As your question quite rightly asks, what does it actually mean? What catastrophic means is that it’s going to have significant impact on the climate of the world. It means more frequent and severe storms that have significant impact on the populations, societies, communities, infrastructure and people.

How many people are going to be involved in such catastrophes? It’s hard to say; you can’t put a number on it. You can’t say X number of people are going to die, or Y number of towns are going to be under water, etc. Predictions vary, and that’s another reason why the report can sometimes be a bit vague, because it depends on what happens between now and 2030.

There’s a lot of variables: economic growth, global economic activity, technological developments and how many new technologies we adopt in energy efficiency and renewables. So there’s a lot of uncertainty. But coming back to the question, What does “catastrophic” mean? If you look at the various aspects of climate change, what sort of impact are we talking about? Let’s run them through.

One is sea level rise. Now, how does sea level rise affect the world? Many towns, cities, countries are on the water, so to speak. An increase of sea level even by a few inches can have a huge impact, particularly if we then add the effects of more severe storms. A rise in sea levels will affect particularly low-lying countries. There are, for instance, Pacific islands that are literally only a few feet above sea level. The reality is that these people can’t go anywhere else. The only thing they can do is either build their houses further up the hill — but often there isn’t a hill — or raise their house somehow on stilts so that they remain above sea level.

On top of that, the other impact is more storms, and more severe storms. Yes, they have been happening for hundreds and thousands of years. They are likely more to be more severe. What does more severe mean? Stronger winds, stronger gusts — and all of this will affect infrastructure, power systems, roads, trains, coastal areas in particular but also in-land areas where there are weather patterns where you will have these tornadoes and hurricanes.

Just imagine instead of hurricanes happening once a year, now we’re going to have twice, three times, four times, five times a year. Is that “catastrophic”? Yes, it can be. Catastrophic in a sense that by the time you recover from one hurricane, you’ve got another one. So that’s what people mean by catastrophic.

That includes storms that might [bring] heavier rain. What does heavy rain mean? More floods, particularly in flood-prone areas in the cities and communities. Again, there have always been floods. We’ve learned to live with these floods. We’ve built systems that can somehow cope or recover from major floods. However, there are countries, communities that are not capable of coping with such events. Also, what if these floods occur more frequently and more severely? In other words, many parts of the world they measure the likelihood of flooding and say things like “one-in-100-years flood.” What if these start happening one every 10 years? One every 20 years? Again, it’s a matter of building resilience and being able to recover from such events. That’s where the problem is.

Just like we have more frequent and severe floods, we’ll also have, ironically and somewhat contradictory, more droughts. Again, more severe, longer droughts, longer periods of no rain, or very little rain, etc. Agriculture, communities and towns, cities rely heavily on water. So it will impact the production of food and sustaining cities and towns.

Then we have more severe heat waves. It has a huge impact on populations. Have we always had heat waves? Yes, we have, around the world there are high temperatures. What if these heat waves occur more regularly and more severely? In Australia, we have just had the hottest summer on record, ever —Ěýat least since records began more than 100 years ago. This has an impact on all of the people. More vulnerable people are more prone to heat waves, and it can affect other things like infrastructure and the actual asphalt.

The road base is melting because of the heat. Railway lines are buckling because of the heat. It turns out that it’s not just the single maximum temperature but the prolonged maximum temperature. Instead of just say 100-120˚F peak, what if the 120˚ stayed there for two-three days? It turns out that has even a bigger impact because the system cannot recover.

So we have all of these impacts, and when people talk about “catastrophe,” what if all these things happened around the world more frequently, more severely, and had a huge impact on the economy, on sustaining communities, on the health of people and ecosystems? That’s what the report is referring to as “catastrophic,” and that’s why we need to act very quickly.

Yazdani: That really paints a pretty comprehensive picture of what we can expect if we do reach that tipping point in 2030. You’ve also written quite extensively on the distrust toward climate science and the psychological reasons behind why someone might reject it. When we think of climate change deniers, we often think of people who stand to lose from the adoption of clean energyĚý— like those that work for corporations, car manufacturers, coal producers, power plants, etc., and their lobbyists. What are some other reasons why people might refuse to believe in climate change?

Sinanian: You might be referring to the book I wrote called A Climate for Denial. The reason I mention it is that I did a lot of research into this very thing because I was genuinely intrigued as to why seemingly intelligent, educated people would accept other parts of science. They go to their doctor when they’re sick, they have surgery by a surgeon, who is basically a scientist. The same science goes into designing and flying an aircraft as predicting climate change or deciding how much greenhouse gasses are impacting climate change — the same science, the same rigorous methodologies. Why do these people reject the science of climate change when they in fact accept many others? Our daily lives almost depend entirely on science.

To answer your question, what I’ve found is that there are many factors that affect a person’s accepting or not accepting the science of climate change. It turns out that ideology is the biggest determinant: There have been many surveys and studies done by schools of psychology around many of these reputable universities around the world. So then the question arises, What is it about ideology that affects people’s acceptance of science? Let me just say outright that the science on climate change is absolutely clear. There is no doubt, no question mark. The only thing we can’t really put our finger on which I alluded to earlier is just how much the impact of climate change is going to be.

The way that climate scientists predict the impact of these greenhouse gasses that we’re putting into the atmosphere is that they have models and rely on very sophisticated, I want to emphasize this, very, very sophisticated models that almost include hundreds of different variables, including solar flares, volcanoes, cows and people doing what we do when we eat food. It includes all of that and historic data on everything you can imagine, and then it includes economic factors, technological factors, the use of energy, etc. It’s very sophisticated.

I say this because people say to me, “What about solar flares? Hm? You didn’t think of that, huh?” Of course they thought of that. Some of these deniers come to me with the most mundane, basic questions that an 8-year-old asks as if all these scientists that have spent their whole professional lives looking at this would not have thought of that.

Ideology is a big one. What does ideology have to do with accepting science? Well, my conclusion was that there are people whose ideology is such that there is a level of anti-authoritarianism in their way of looking into the world. They don’t want to be told to live their lives in a certain way. It’s kind of a reaction to being told that you have to use less energy, that you have to use a smaller car, you’re using too much fossil fuels, etc. On top of that, there is this notion that, particularly with ultra right-wing ideology — and I’m not having a go at anybody here, but just giving you what the research is telling me —Ěýthere is a feeling that instead of being told what to do, maybe the market should decide what is best for the economy and what is best for us.

The market decides how much tomatoes cost, how much your car is worth, etc. If, for instance, we run out of oil, then oil will become more expensive and less people will use oil. You get the point. As it turns out, very reputable economists whom I mention in my book have said that, in fact, climate change is possibly and probably the biggest failure in the marketplace. A failure because the decisions we have made since the industrial revolution started, the decisions we have made in deciding what kind of economy and what kind of power system we have, and transport systems — major decisions we’ve made have not incorporated the environmental damage and climate change.

If you believe in the market making decisions for us, then sometimes the market does not get it right. It does not always get the price of a tomato correct. And that’s when usually governments step in and provide subsidies and provide some sort of adjustment to these things to change the market.

That’s ideology. But wait, there’s more. It turns out that apart from ideology, theology or religion, has an impact. You might say, What does religion have to do with climate change? Well, I’ve been told by highly religious people, and again studies show this, if you truly believe that God, a god, is omnipotent, omniscient and is in control of this whole thing — of the existence of humans on earth, of the existence of the earth, how these things happen — then they say that God after all determines our climate and determines whether we survive or not.

I even asked a very religious person, “Wait a minute, you’re saying that you’re willing to leave all of this for God to decide?” And he said, “Yes, absolutely.” So if we’re going to be wiped off the face of this earth, he said to me, “Well, maybe this is part of God’s plan.” But I didn’t have the heart to say to him, What if you had a really, really almost fatal disease, but a curable one. Are you going to say, “Well, it’s God’s will, so I might as well die,” or are you going to go to the doctor and say, Please cure me, get rid of this damn thing? So again, it doesn’t make sense, but that’s the way it is.

But fortunately, the current pope has responded to this very question. A very important paper, Pope Francis’s Encyclical on the Environment, released about two years ago turns that argument completely upside down. What his paper basically says is, yes, God gave us this incredible gift — the gift of this earth, the gift of the beauty, our lives, on this earth — and we owe it to God to look after it for him (or for her).

So far, we have ideology, theology, the marketplace fallacy, and then it goes on and on. There’s fear, and it kind of addresses what you said about people who have a vested interest. People are afraid that if we change all of this — [if] we get renewable energy, rely more on renewable energy than on fossil fuels — then somehow our lives are going to be worse off, the economy is going to suffer, etc. There’s this fear of change. Humans, generally, do not like change. Nobody likes change, because change means uncertainty; we don’t know what’s going to come, we don’t know what’s ahead. We don’t want to change our way of life. I want to keep my car. I want to drive it everywhere I want. I want to put my air conditioning on. I want to stay cool. I want to stay comfortable. All of that.

But here is the counterargument to that fear: What if we had our entire energy provided by renewables? What if? It’s a big hypothetical, I know. Imagine that. All of our energy comes from renewable sources. Guess what? You won’t even have to turn your lights off. You won’t have to turn your air conditioning off. You’ll be able to run your electric car until it falls apart. What I’m saying is that if we have renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, none of these fears would happen. The only problem is, how we do get there? That’s the biggest issue we have.

Yazdani: You mentioned earlier the resistance to authority, God’s will, market shortfalls: How can we — or political leaders, religious leaders, people who have influence, scientists — more clearly communicate the reality of climate change?

Sinanian: It’s interesting that you say that, because the reason why I thought my research and book are important, is because I think communication needs to change. I’ll start with the scientists. The scientists have done themselves a disservice. It turns out that for a climate denier, the last thing you should give that person is more graphs, numbers and data. It’s more to do with ideology than figures, graphs and numbers. It’s convincing them that the fear is unjustified, the market is not going to work and these catastrophic things will affect us.

Really, the communication ought to be more positive than that. At the end of the day, it becomes a philosophical question rather than a scientific or political one. The question is, Do we really care about future generations? It’s as simple as that.

The scientists have to present the information, the data in such a way as not to talk down to people. They think they know everything. Well, between you and me, they do — they know a hell of a lot more than the average person on the street, and know a hell of a lot more than most politicians and corporate leaders. But it’s how you communicate. Instead of talking down to people and saying you’re ignorant and don’t know a thing, the way to communicate has to be more inclusive and understanding of these fears and denialist tendencies that I talked about earlier.

At the personal level — that’s you and me —Ěýwhat can we do about it? Other than making our own small decisions in the way we live on this planet, I think we can also make decisions when we come to vote. Most people [live] in a democracy, and in a democracy we have ways of choosing our leaders. The people we choose to represent us agree with our values, morals and ethical standards, including climate change. When I vote, there is no way that I will vote for someone who doesn’t believe in climate change. Why? Because as I said, it’s going to lead to catastrophe for future generations and I will not be able to die in peace knowing that I gave power to that person.

Now, this doesn’t guarantee anything of course, but even if a leader is voted in who doesn’t agree with it, we can write to politicians, express our disappointments in their lack of climate change policy, because not doing something is as bad as doing something bad.

Yazdani: Earlier you mentioned that many people see climate change through a generational lens. Last month, youth from over 100 countries around the world walked out of their classrooms to participate in what they called a Climate Strike to demand leaders to respond with greater urgency to climate change and take more action. We have also seen a Green New Deal put forward in US Congress. Do you think leaders are feeling pressure from the public, particularly the youth, to do more to address climate change and make hard decisions?

Sinanian: Absolutely. I have contacts all over the world, and the response to [the student strikes] all over the world was fantastic. In a way, the strikes were the best way to tell leaders, particularly coming from the youth, because, as I said, this is an intergenerational problem. To be honest, my generation is probably not going to suffer anywhere nearly as much as future generations. The strikes were fundamentally important —Ěýand I would say fundamentally successful.

You mentioned a tipping point earlier. I think we are reaching a tipping point in climate action, because there is a change in the mood around the world. In Europe, France, Germany, have been way ahead of America and Australia on this. They’re already there. There are now movements in the mood and in the feeling among politicians — and politics — around the world. The mood of the community and the action of what the young people are asking for is changing.

So how is this going to change policy? Because there are very young people that went on strike, if you’re a politician, you’re thinking, Those young people are going to vote in a few years’ time and going to put me, or my party or my congress out of [office]. There is now this feeling around the world that we better change our colors. We better change our policies, otherwise we’re going to be dinosaurs, so to speak.

Yazdani: Bringing it back to the US, last year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that greenhouse gas emission had decreased by 2.7% from 2016 to 2017 during the first years of Donald Trump’s presidency. Andrew Wheeler, the head of the EPA, that “these achievements flow largely from technological breakthroughs in the private sector, not the heavy hand of government. The Trump administration has proved that federal regulations are not necessary to drive CO2 reductions.” What’s your reaction to this press release, and can we significantly stem greenhouse gas emissions without government regulations?

Sinanian: No. I totally disagree. I don’t feel capable or justified in what I’m about to say. I have a lot of respect for the EPA. However, I cannot help but feel that that statement was a political statement rather than a technical one. I’ll talk generally about agencies like EPAs around the world. They are absolutely fundamental to monitoring and measuring our emissions and what impacts policies are having on our emissions. They measure our fuel, energy usage per capita, sector, economy, city, state. The first thing about management of anything, not just science or climate, requires data and monitoring and reporting.

Now, EPAs of this world are in the best possible place to do these measurements and collation of data and then to report, because that then gives the decision-makers the tools and data they need to put the appropriate policy measures in place. Regulators such as the EPA also are involved with the actual implementation of policies and regulations. We need regulations to stop people polluting and doing unlawful acts according to the country or state’s regulatory framework. Otherwise, if we didn’t have EPAs of this world, I could put cyanide down the sink or put toxic chemicals down the river. They fill a very important function not only for climate change but also for regulating and policing environmental issues, and monitoring and reporting to politicians to advise them.

Yazdani: Regulations aside, what are other steps that the government can do to help foster investment in renewable energy and discouraging the use of fossil fuels?

Sinanian: There is a fear that somehow transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is going to be painful, costly, a nuisance, [and will] degrade our quality of life. What can they do? As it turns out, investment in renewable energy is at the highest it has ever been. The US is not a bad guy here. On the contrary, after China, the US is the second biggest investor in renewable energy. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for what’s happening in the USA. A lot of this is happening because of the market. What’s happened, for instance, [is that] solar panels and wind, the cost of renewables, the installation and operation, have come down. The costs have come down significantly.

Not only that, but the technology has improved. Solar power is far more efficient than it has ever been. You add that to the cost reductions as well, and it’s got to the point that in many parts of the world solar energy and wind energy are challenging the cost of coal-powered electricity. In many parts of the world, coal-powered generation is by far the cheapest option. If that’s our baseline and what we’re aiming for, it turns out that solar and wind power is now challenging that economic argument.

What can the EPAs of this world do? They can mention that and show the success and the economic, as well as the environmental, benefits of renewables. Incidentally, economists are also saying — and have done the calculations — that not addressing climate change is going to be costlier than actually addressing it.

Yazdani: We talked about how climate change can look like at the individual level, at the national level, and what governments can do. To bring it to the global level, how effective are international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement in compelling signatory countries to meeting their emission targets? So unlike the 1997 , the is not a legally binding treaty, therefore there are enforcement mechanisms for countries’ non-compliance with the agreement. Are pledges enough to ensure that warming does not surpass 2˚C above pre-industrial levels?

Sinanian: Unfortunately, no. The Paris Agreement is a compromise. It’s an agreement to agree. It’s like you and I agree that we’re going to do something. High five, we’ve agreed to do something. The reality is that the global agreements have always been extremely difficult, even more difficult than the national ones. I’ll tell you why. In all of these meetings that they have in the United Nations, just imagine almost 200 countries coming together to agree, as I said, to agree to change the way we live on this planet. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do. They can hardly agree to the time of day, let alone how we’re going to change.

There are many problems, but the main problem is this: There are around the world the haves and the haves not. There is the industrialized countries, USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc., and then there are the other countries that are still developing, including China. China is still predominantly an underdeveloped country. Don’t be fooled. Yes, they’re making everything we wear, use and buy. You’ve got India coming up and many other Asian, African, South American countries that are predominantly underdeveloped. How does one provide a bridge?

India is about a billion people, [and some ] don’t even have electricity yet. Here I am thinking about turning my air condition on and off. In many parts of India, they cook with little sticks of wood. So how are we going to [tell] these people, No you cannot have electricity, sorry — you could only if you have solar wind, but you can’t have electricity because that’s going to add to greenhouse gasses. You can’t do that to people. They have as much right to come to our level of affluence and quality of life as we have established for ourselves.

You’ve got a huge discrepancy between the developed and underdeveloped economies. How are we going to bridge that and let them develop, because development ultimately requires energy use. If they’re going to develop and require more energy, how can we make sure they do all of this without adding to greenhouse gasses? It’s a huge problem. That’s why global agreements have failed.

What [such agreements mandate] is for the developed countries to reduce emissions enough to allow the underdeveloped countries to come up mid-way. Kyoto did that, and I was personally involved in implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the United Nations. The way that Kyoto tried to do it was encourage cross-subsidization for developing countries to put in renewable energy and energy efficiency systems to that they could develop — transfer technology to them, teaching them how to do it better, but also at the same time to encourage them with economic assistance, to embed low carbon technologies and low carbon energy generation.

It’s a big problem. That’s why the Paris Climate Agreement is non-binding and just an agreement. Let’s meet for a few days, have lots of cups of teas and agree to do something. We don’t know what it is, and even if we know what it is, we’re not bound to it.

*[Updated: June 6, 2019.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post How Ideology Affects Our Acceptance of Climate Science appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

In times of global turmoil, it can seem odd to emphasize the importance of spiritual institutions in our drive to halt climate change. However, faith-based delegations flocked to this year’s UN Climate Change Conference, COP24, in Katowice, Poland, from all corners of our planet. Indigenous leaders, scientists and UN officials rang the bell for attention to the foundational role spirituality plays in halting the growing existential catastrophe of climate change.

In the words of Dr. Debra Roberts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) co-chair of Working Group II during an event dedicated to solidarity, “Faith communities play a powerful role even science is acknowledging.”

This is not simply due to the capacity of religious institutions to shake up the of those who identify with a faith worldwide into action. Our Anthropocene era of humans “playing God” is marked by an emphasis on materialism, mounting egocentrism and the loss of the sacredness when it comes to life forms. As a result, many are searching for foundational moral critiques of these societal norms that have become part of the catalysts driving environmental disaster. “When you stop and think about it, religion should be helping,” emphasized His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa, the Buddhist spiritual leader, at the COP24 Action Hub.

Philosophical Path to Environmentalism

Although very diverse from one another in their philosophical pathways, including the various indigenous beliefs, spiritual institutions envelop environmental issues in a two-tiered structure. First, they ingrain a heightened existential awareness, a connection to the world, a sacred importance of created life forms and emphasis on the reproductive continuity of humanity, where climate change and environmental destruction is an all-encompassing threat. Then, with provided moral practices and behaviors to maintain such existence and life forms, these ecologically conscious actions are grounded as sacred and foundational duties of individuals and community for the continuing family and society — our future generations.

From the perspective of the diverse spiritual bodies backing climate warnings and targets, this is an existential and moral question of our current social behavior requiring holistic change. With this approach in mind, religious leaders and adherents filled seats at the COP24 conferences aware of the crisis humans have wreaked upon creation. To change the status quo, they emphasize embedding scientific, indigenous and local climate mitigations and adaptation strategies into each respective region’s moral practices as has been spiritually done for millennia.

Following localized community planning to meet climate targets and human well-being, they highlighted, alongside events at the , spirituality’s role in underlining and providing structures for bringing communities together, emphasizing the common good — a mentality direly called for by climate experts.

Why is this mentality important? Because it is what shapes the way humans view the world and gear into action. This is what climate experts have been speaking about, where there is almost a nihilistic lack of strong collective conviction with holistic solutions and urgent push toward preserving life and our own continual existence, despite the tumbling pages of scientific data and warnings. There is a moral unaccountability of a rigid socioeconomic structure pushing the perpetual drive for material accumulation and unleashing humanity’s desires onto the planet.

Humanity Follows the Earth

The need to curtail this is underlined in Taoism, for instance, which places an emphasis on self-discipline and constraint in our handling of the environment. This ancient Chinese religion bases itself on human actions flowing with the way of life, the Tao, and has a recurrent criticism of a world that can be exploited due to our current overreliance on the human will. As the Tao Te Ching, a fundamental text of Taoism, emphasizes: “Humanity follows the Earth, the Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows the Tao, and the Tao follows what is natural.”

Seen through this prism, fixing this ecological crisis requires a deep re-examination of our collective outlook on the world, values and the way our knowledge is structured that can then mobilize people to behave meaningfully and care deeply about climate change and ecological destruction.

With over 4,000 belief systems inhabiting and giving meaning to this life since the first humans, there is hope in the role of religion and spirituality in helping shape and deliver such ecological conceptualization of the worldĚýand meaningful actions that the IPCC report, Paris Agreement and environmentalists are calling for.

And Taoism is of course not alone. Christian moral teachings stress the principle of stewardship in God’s followers to work as caretakers for the creation God has put on Earth, which is to be used, not destroyed, as the coming generations also have the right to it. Archbishop Bernardito Auza-Nuncio, of the Holy See to the UN, emphasizes this concept of sustainability: “Long before the UN and the warnings of climate change, as Catholics we have been raised with fundamental teachings of how to relate to the environment, every creation is a gift given for generations to come.”

Auza-Nuncio castigated our consumerist society as the basis of our public relations, which goes against religious teachings on materialism and, like Pope Francis’ and the IPCC report, calling for a change in lifestyle. He couldn’t underline enough the obligation churches had in integrating environmental protection into their sermons, education and programs.

Such can be seen in the initiative in Britain, a Christian community project that can be reproduced anywhere. It focuses on restoring the land around the thousands of churches and burial grounds as a natural sanctuary for flora and fauna to thrive and serve as an embodiment of the church’s core teaching in respecting nature and criticizing the incursions of industrialization on habitats.

Sacred Land

This protection of natural spaces due to their sacredness is an ecological pillar of indigenous biodiversity protection defended by top environmental organizations as what has conserved ecosystems for centuries. This is exemplified by the Marae Moana bill, meaning “sacred ocean,” which is based on ancestral spiritual teachings and protects totaling over 1.9 million square kilometers. In July 2017, the bill passed unanimously in the Cook Islands Parliament.

This has been the same goal behind the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) Sacred Land project. A secular body where religious groups develop their environmental programs, it can boast some successes such as Lebanon’s Maronite Church a large portion of the Harissa Forest and the of 80 sacred Buddhist sites in Mongolia.

Buddhism’s teachings on life protection are well known. However, the in Taiwan displayed another side of religious institutions in playing their classic role in organizing charities and mobilizing relief in an impeding time of worsening climate disasters. After Hurricane Harvey, following on the heels of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, damaged and destroyed over in Texas, hundreds of Buddhist volunteers were weaving blankets from recycled PET bottles picked up from the streets and beaches of Taiwan for the relief shelters in America.

“We have the technology that turns this plastic into textiles,” said Mei-Feng Li, a representative for the Tzu Chi Foundation, in an interview at COP24. “It is very difficult to work for hours outside in the streets and collecting bottles in the hot weather, but we can do it because we have faith.”

The imperative of human charity is also particularly significant in emphasizing the need for climate finance and aid to developing nations struggling with the unfair burden of environmental disasters. Addressing this fraught topic for COP24, Father Zampini of the Dicastery Faith and Development division underlined that “Climate change is affecting our communities around the world, with the poor the worst affected. And as Christians, we have a mandate to protect the poor.”

Our current animal-based diet carries a fair share of the responsibility for the deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions globally, as per the latest and most thorough research published in the journal . The Buddhist emphasis on decreasing our meat consumption was also subject of an interfaith conversation with Father Zampini. In line with the environmental concerns of the journal’s research calling for a global shift to a so-called flexitarian diet that entails a 75% reduction in beef consumption, they discussed reviving the importance of the Friday fast — a meat-free fast performed in commemoration of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Good Friday.

This weekly vegetarian day, by many environmental organizations to cut back on global CO2 emissions, is anchored in emphasizing a moral behavior in the Christian collective consciousness that could have positive ecological impact. Moreover, like in Hinduism that encourages vegetarianism in its followers, it could regenerate a respect for all life forms as God’s creations.

How Will We Face Our Lord?

In Islam, seeing God’s hand in the existence of nature’s phenomena calls for an unequivocal protection, with the existence of nature serving as proof of the bountiful mercy and intelligence of God. The powerful was issued in August 2015 by faith leaders addressed the ecological damages caused by our relentless pursuit of consumption. It called on the 1.8 billion Muslims to pay attention to the environmental teachings in the Quran. Like Christianity, it reminds people that as stewards, we have caused ´Ú˛ą˛őÄĺ»ĺ (corruption and devastation) by wrecking the łľÄ«łúÄĺ˛Ô (earth’s fine equilibrium) and gifts of God for our descendants, which have all been created bi ’l-haqq (in truth and with purpose). One preamble ends with an authoritative question to the deep shame of human behavior and our accountability: “How will we face our Lord and Creator?”

However, perhaps what draws much attention within the extensive compilation of the declaration is the affirmation of a Quranic passage that foretells the effect of such actions: “Corruption has appeared on land and sea by what people’s own hands have wrought, that He may let them taste some consequences of their deeds, so that they may turn back.” (Quran 30: 41)

Confucianism presents the same philosophical basis to explain the existence of climate change as humanity’s disruption of the cosmic balance of relationships. Famous for its emphasis on structure, it uses an view, which is a fancy term for its cosmic triad between heaven, earth and humans. This is the basis of the universe where everything is greatly interconnected with chi (life force or energy flow) and is ceaselessly moving and giving birth to life. All these pillars intertwined together in the creative process of life are the origin of what morality is in the human social sphere. A balance based on nature is a model for how people should conduct themselves.

This is popularly seen within the concept of yin-yang that showcases the world’s dynamic equilibrium as symbol for human self-control. This relationship is further developed in allusion to plants that serve as the embodiments of virtues, meditative exercises and Chinese martial arts focus on the cultivation of one’s chi, by behaving along the patterns of nature both in the mind and through physical maneuvers.

Here, the destruction wrought by climate change is a weapon turned back at us as proof that as societies we are behaving in a way against the cosmic structure and morality of which life creates. Along with the premium importance of one’s family, the fact that one’s own descendants are to be affected by such irresponsible actions of their elders is a deep disgrace.

Union with the Divine

Just south of China, in India, among the many spiritual and indigenous beliefs that embed environmental maintenance in their philosophy, EcoSikh highlights the importance of our communal behaviors in conserving this world. The foundation is based on the teachings of the gurus and a belief in a more sustainable future.

“The Sikh Gurus referred to the Earth as a �Dharamsaal,’ a place where union with the Divine is attained. Guru Nanak describes this in �Jap Ji Sahib,’ that amid the rhythms of Creation, the changing seasons, air, waters, the Creator established the Earth as the home for humans to realize their Divinity in this world,” EcoSikh North American program ambassador, Bandana Kaur.

Like the Japanese Shinto religion, it embodies parenthood that connects humans to an important cosmic world such as water being the father and earth the mother. However, Japan’s emphasis on nature’s family relations as a pillar for environmental sustainability is different, where mountains, islands, rivers, rain, sun, plants, animals and humanity are children of a divine couple, kami, and are all living in harmony with each other as blood kin.

As a construction and mirror of Japan’s notoriously organized culture, every being is required to maintain its own role in order for everything to work in continuous unity. This translates into a view of sacredness and awe toward nature and the invisible existence that makes all this possible, which is greatly reinforced and displayed through prayers, matsuri, of gratitude and reverence for the kami (spirit) in all things during agricultural cycles. Although a religion increasingly declining in practice in the era of industrialization, one can still catch a festival such as the Niiname-sai harvest ritual in autumn.

There are other philosophical pathways that develop different, but similarly deep, ways of underlining our relationship to nature. In an American signed by 425 Rabbis, it first began by celebrating the breath of life that interweaves all creatures and extended a strong rebuke to corporations. The letter then echoed the need for redevelopment of human behavior as called for by the Torah: “We are especially moved when the deepest, most ancient insights of Torah about healing the relationships of Earth and human earthlings,ĚýadamahĚý˛ą˛Ô»ĺĚýadam, are echoed in the findings of modern science,” it states, revoking Leviticus 25-26 and Deuteronomy 15 which infers a time of rest for the Earth. “In Leviticus 26, the Torah warns us that if we refuse to let the Earth rest, it will â€�rest’ anyway, despite us and upon us — through drought and famine and exile that turn an entire people into refugees.”

A Brighter Light

The spiritual contrast provided by the world’s religions to the central idea of our materialistic society is particularly important in mobilizing followers to help drive in the structural change as the latest IPCC report is calling for. “Matthews did say, �You cannot serve both God and Mammon,’” said a Christian observer in an interview after an event by Bolivian indigenous leaders at COP24 who criticized our capitalist’s society’s unsustainable forms of plunder and production.

Unsurprisingly, indigenous spiritual traditions have already been highlighted by the UN and international organizations as key reasons for successful ecological protection. This author once attended a UN seminar on indigenous rights that didn’t begin until we gave a prayer of thanks for creation and food, and which ended in a purification ritual.

Like the spiritual environmental successes within native communities, similar to the proposed by Amazonian indigenous people at COP24, religious institutions may push followers to act more urgently in order to meet the IPCC’s 12-year window for the world to stay below the Paris Climate Agreement’s 1.5°C red line. Backing these up by highlighting religious ecological actions, uniting communities, embedding the collective ethical sense of duty in all individuals, elevating the outlook of the common good and criticizing the destructive moral foundations of society can be part of creating the structural change required.

In times where bad news and confusion seem to dominate headlines, a brighter light is trying to form itself through regeneration, quick mobilization and with indigenous peoples to halt the existential and moral crisis that is climate change. With over 4,000 belief systems inhabiting and giving meaning to this life since the first humans, there is hope in the role of religion and spirituality in helping shape and deliver such ecological conceptualization of the world and meaningful actions that the IPCC report, Paris Agreement and environmentalists are calling for.

*[An earlier version of this article referred to the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation as the “Buddhist Tzu Chi Compassion Relief Foundation.” Updated: May 17, 2019]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Can Spirituality and Religion Help Halt Climate Change? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Sixty-six million years ago, so the scientistsĚý, an asteroid slammed into this planet. Landing on what’s now Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, it gouged out a crater 150-kilometers wide andĚýĚýso much soot and sulfur into the atmosphere that it created what was essentially a prolonged “.” During that time, among so many other species, large and small, the dinosaurs went down for the count. (Don’t, however, tell that to your local chicken, theĚýĚý— it’s now believed — of Tyrannosaurus Rex.)

It took approximately 66 million years for humanity to evolve from lowly surviving mammals and, over the course of a recent century or two, teach itself how to replicate the remarkable destructive power of that long-gone asteroid in two different ways: via nuclear power and the burning of fossil fuels. And if that isn’t an accomplishment for the species that likes to bill itself as the most intelligent ever to inhabit this planet, what is?

Talking about accomplishments: As humanity has armed itself ever more lethally, it has also transformed itself into the local equivalent of so many asteroids. Think, for instance, of that moment in the spring of 2003 when George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the crew launched the invasion of Iraq withĚýĚýof setting up aĚýPax AmericanaĚýacross the greater Middle East and beyond.

By the time US troops entered Baghdad, the burning and looting of the Iraqi capital had already begun, leaving the National Museum of IraqĚýĚý(gone were theĚýĚýon which Hammurabi first had a code of laws inscribed) and the National Library of Baghdad, with its tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts,Ěý. (No such “” had hit that city since 1258, when Mongol warriors sacked it, destroying its many libraries and reputedly leaving the Tigris River running “black with ink” and red with blood.)

In truth, since 2003 the greater Middle East has never stopped burning, as other militaries — Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Russian, Saudi, Syrian, Turkish — entered the fray, insurgent groups rose, terror movements spread and the US military never left. By now, the asteroidal nature of American acts in the region should be beyond question.

Consider, for example, theĚýĚýretired general and former secretary of defense, Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, the man who classicallyĚýĚýof an IraqiĚýĚý(including musicians) that his troops took out in 2004, “How many people go to the middle of the desert … to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?” Or consider that, in the very same year, Mattis and the 1st Marine Division he commanded had just such an impact on the Iraqi city of Fallujah, leaving more thanĚýĚýof it in rubble.

Or focus for a moment on theĚýĚýcaused by some combination of US air power, Islamic State (IS) suicide bombers, artillery and mortars that, in seven months of fighting in 2017, uprootedĚýĚýfrom the still largely unreconstructed Iraqi city ofĚýĚý(·Éłó±đ°ů±đĚýĚýof rubble are estimated to remain). Or try to bring to mind theĚýĚýcity ofĚý. Or consider the destruction of the Syrian city of Raqqa, the former “capital” of the IS caliphate, that left more than 80% “uninhabitable” after the US (and allied) air forces droppedĚýĚýon it. All are versions of the same phenomenon.

And yet when it comes to asteroids and the human future, one thing should be obvious. Such examples still represent relatively small-scale local impacts, given what’s to come.

The Wars From Hell

If you happened to be an Afghan, Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian, Somali or Yemeni in the 21st century, can there be any question that life would have seemed asteroidal to you? What Osama bin LadenĚýĚýwith just 19 fanatic followers and four hijacked commercial airliners in 2001, the US military continued across the greater Middle East and North Africa as if it were the force from outer space (which, in a sense, it was).

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about cities turned to rubble, civilians slaughtered,ĚýĚýobliterated, populations uprooted and sent into various forms of exile, the transformation of former nations (however autocratic) into failed states or the spread of terrorism. It’s been quite a story.ĚýMore than 17 years and at leastĚýĚýafter the Bush administration launched itsĚý, can there be any question that the wildest dreams ofĚýĚýhave been more than fulfilled? And it’s not faintly over yet.

More remarkable still, just about all of this has largely been ignored in the country that functionally made it so. If you asked most Americans, they would certainly know that almost 3,000 civilians were slaughtered in the terror attacks of 9/11. But how many (if any) would be aware of theĚýseveral hundredĚýcivilians — brides, grooms, revelers, you name it — similarly slaughtered in what were, in essence, US terror attacks against multiple wedding parties in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen? And that’s just to begin to mention the kinds of destruction that have gone on largely unnoticed here.

In the first 18 years of this century,ĚýĚýof people have been uprooted and displaced — more thanĚýĚýin Syria alone — from what had been their homes, lives, and worlds. Many of them were sent fleeing intoĚýcountries likeĚýJordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Sooner or later, more thanĚý1 millionĚýSyrians made it to Europe and 21,000 even made it to the United States. In the process, Washington’s wars (and the conflicts that unfolded from them) unsettled ever more of the planet in much the way those particulates in the atmosphere did the world of 66 million years ago.

So consider it an irony that, here in the US, so few connections have been made between such events and an unceasing series of American conflicts across the greater Middle East and Africa — or that the thought of even the mildest sorts of retreats from any of those battlegrounds instantly leaves political and national security elites in Washington (and the media that cover them) in anĚýĚýof horror.

Consider this a tale of imperial power gone awry that — were anyone here truly paying attention — could hardly have been uglier. And no matter what happens from here on, it’s hard to imagine how things won’t, in fact, getĚýĚýstill. I’m not just thinking about Donald Trump’s Washington in 2019, where such ugliness is par for the course. I’m thinking about all of those lands affected by America’s unending post-9/11 wars (and the catastrophicĚýĚýSaudi one in Yemen that goes with them) — about, that is, the region and the conflicts from which Trump sorta,Ěý, in the most limited of ways was threatening to begin pulling back as 2018 ended and about which official Washington promptlyĚý.

We’re talking, of course, about the conflicts from hell that have long been labeled “the war on terror” but — given theĚýĚýof terror groups and the rise of the anti-immigrant right in Europe and the US — should probably have been called the “war for terror” or the “war from hell.” And it’s this that official Washington and much of the mainstream media can’t imagine getting rid of or out of.

Naturally, doing so will be ugly. In functionally admitting to a kind of defeat (even if the president insists on calling it victory), Washington will be tossing aside allies — Kurds, Afghans and others — and leaving those who don’t deserve such a fate in so many ditches (justĚýĚýin Vietnam long ago). Worse yet, it will be leaving behind a part of the world that, on its watch, became not just a series ofĚýĚýor semi-failed states, but a failed region. It will be leaving behind populations armed to the teeth, bereft of normal lives or often of any sort of life at all, and of hope. It will be leaving behind aĚýĚýrobbed of theirĚýĚýand undoubtedly mad as hell. It will be leaving behind those cities in rubble and a universe of refugees and insurgents galore. Even if IS doesn’t rebound, don’t imagine that other horrors can’t arise in such circumstances and amid such wreckage. Ugly will be the word for it.

And for some of that ugliness, you can indeed thank Trump, whether he withdraws American troops from Syria, as promised,Ěý. After all, here’s the strange thing: Though no one in Washington or elsewhere in this country had paid more than passing attention to it, the recent Syrian “withdrawal” decision wasn’t The Donald’s first.

In March 2018, he “froze”ĚýĚýthat had been promised for Syrian aid and reconstruction, money that assumedly might have gone to derubblizing parts of that country. And rather than being up in arms about it, rather than offering a crescendo of criticism (as with his recent decision to withdraw troops), rather than resignations and protests, official Washington and the media that covers it just shrugged their collective shoulders. It couldn’t have been uglier, but Washington was unfazed.

As for countermanding the president’s order and staying, we already know what more than 17 years of endless American war have delivered to that region (as well as subtracted from the American treasury). What would another two, four or eight years of — to use a fairly recentĚýĚý— “infinite war” mean?

Here’s one thing for sure: Ugly wouldn’t even cover it. And keep in mind that, despite Trump’s recent Syrian and Afghan decisions (both of which areĚý), so much of what passes for American war in this century, including the particularly grim Saudi version of it in Yemen and those Air Force and CIAĚýĚýacross much of the region, has shown little sign of abating anytime soon.

Using Up Precious Time

And then, of course, there’s that other issue, the one where withdrawal can’t come into play, the one where ugly doesn’t even begin to cover the territory. In case you haven’t instantly guessed — and I suspect you have — I’m thinking about what’s happening to the place known to its English-speaking inhabitants as Earth. It no longer takes a scientist or a probing intelligence to know that the planet that welcomed humanity all these thousands of years has begun to appear a good deal less gracious thanks to humanity’s burning of fossil fuels and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

By now, no matter where you live, you should know theĚýĚýwell enough, including (just to start down a long list): temperatures that areĚýĚýand only promise to rise yet more; a recordĚý of Arctic ice; aĚýĚýof ocean waters; everĚý; everĚýĚý(˛ą˛Ô»ĺĚýĚýfire seasons); rising sea levels that promise to beginĚýĚýcoastal cities sometime later this century; and the coming ofĚýĚýand devastating heat waves (that by 2100 may, for instance, make the now heavily populated North China plainĚý).

Nor do you have to be a scientist these days to draw a few obvious conclusions about trends on a planet where theĚýĚýare the hottest on record and 20 of the last 22 years qualify as the warmest yet. And keep in mind that most of this was already clear enough at the moment in planetary history when a near-majority of Americans elected as president anĚýĚýclimate-change denier, as were so many in the party of which he became the orange-haired face. And also keep in mind that the very term climate-change denier no longer seems faintly apt as a description for him, “his” party or the crew he’s put in control of the government. Instead, they are proving to be the most enthusiastic group of climate-changeĚýĚýľ±łľ˛ą˛µľ±˛Ô˛ą˛ú±ô±đ.

In other words, the administration heading the country that,Ěý, has been the largest emitter of greenhouse gases is now in the business — from leaving the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to opening the way forĚý, from expandingĚýĚýto encouragingĚý, fromĚýĚýcoal plants to release more mercury into the atmosphere toĚýĚýits own climate-change study — of doing more of the same until the end of time. And that’s certainly a testament to something.

Ultimately, though, what it’s doing may be less important than what it isn’t doing. On a planet on which, according to theĚý, there are only perhaps a dozen years left to keep the long-term global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees centigrade, the Trump administration is wasting time in the worst way imaginable.

An Asteroidal Future

Even 18 years into a series of “quagmire” Middle Eastern wars, the US could still withdraw from them, however ugly the process might be. It could indeed bring the troops home; it could ground the drones; it could downsize the special operations forces that now add up to a secret army of 70,000 (larger thanĚýthe armies of many nations) at presentĚýĚýto much of the globe. It could do many things.

What Washington can’t do — whatĚýweĚýcan’t do — is withdraw from the Earth, which is why we are now living on what I increasingly think of as a quagmire planet.

In the 1960s, that word, quagmire (“a bog having a surface that yields when stepped on”), and its cognates — swamp, sinkhole, morass, quicksand, bottomless pit — were picked up across the spectrum of American politics and applied to the increasingly disastrous war in Vietnam. It was an image that robbed Washington of much of its responsibility for that conflict. The quagmire itself was at fault — or as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., put it at the time: “And so the policy of â€�one more step’ lured the United States deeper and deeper into the morass… until we find ourselves entrapped in that nightmare of American strategists, a land war in Asia.”

Embedded in the war talk of those years, quagmire was, in fact, not a description of the war as much as a worldview imposed on it. That image turned Vietnam into the aggressor, transferring agency for all negative action to the land itself, which had trapped us and wouldn’t let us go, even as that land was devalued. After all, to the Vietnamese, their country was anything but a quagmire. It was home and the American decision to be there a form of hated or desired (or sometimes, among America’s allies there, both hated and desired) intervention. Much the same could be said, of course, of the greater Middle East in this century.

When it comes to this planet in the era of climate change, however, quagmire seems like a far more appropriate image, as long as we keep in mind that we are the aggressors. It is we who are burning those fossil fuels. It is, as our president loves to put it, “” that is threatening to submerge Miami, Shanghai and other coastal cities in the century to come. It is the urge of the Trump administration toĚýĚýthe development of alternative energies, while promoting coal, oil and natural gas production that is threatening the human future. It is the acts and attitudes of Trumpian-like figures fromĚýĚýto Saudi Arabia toĚýĚýthat threaten our children and grandchildren into the distant future, that threaten, in fact, to turn the Earth itself into a rubblized, ravaged planet.

It is Vladimir Putin’s Russian petro-state that is at work creating a future swamp of destruction inĚýĚýand elsewhere. It is a Chinese inability to truly come to grips with itsĚýĚý(not to mention the way it’s exporting coal plants toĚýĚýand elsewhere) that threatens to make our world into a morass. It is the lack of any urge on the part of fossil fuel CEOs to “keep it in the ground” that will potentially take humanity down for the count.

In that context, think of the man who, from his earliest moments in the Oval Office, wanted to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement,ĚýĚýhis cabinet with climate-change denial aiders and abettors, was desperate toĚýĚýhis predecessor’s modest steps on climate change, and never saw a coal mine, oil rig or fracking outfit he didn’t love as the latest asteroid to hit planet Earth. Under the circumstances, if the rest of us don’t get ourselves together, we are likely to be the dinosaurs of theĚý.

Donald Trump himself is, of course, just a tiny, passing fragment of human history. Already 72, he will undoubtedly be taken down by a Big Mac attack or something else in the years to come and most of his record will become just so much human history. But on this single subject, his impact threatens to be anything but a matter of human history. It threatens to play out on a time scale that should boggle the mind.

He is a reminder that, on this quagmire planet of ours, we — the rest of us — have no place to go, despite NASA’sĚýĚýto send humans to Mars, the rise ofĚýĚýfor space tourism and a Chinese spacecraft’sĚýĚýon the far side of the moon. So, if we care about our children and grandchildren, as 2019 passes there is no time to spare and no more burning issue on planet Earth than this.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Things Could Get a Lot Uglier on Earth appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The United Nations is often criticized for bureaucratic inefficiency, with its more passionate critics disparaging the organization’s “uselessness.” Despite this, the UN still wields a remarkable influence in its mission to promote international cooperation and to create and maintain international order.

MarĂ­a Fernanda Espinosa GarcĂ©s, who brings more than 20 years of multilateral experience in such fields as international negotiations, peace, security and human rights, has pledged to maintain the UN’s commitment to multilateral relations while proposing a number of crucial and pressing reforms more in tune with the “needs and quests” of an ever more connected world. Her appointment comes during a time characterized by heightened political tensions and fears of global unrest, and Espinosa GarcĂ©s advocates for a solutions-based approach designed to not just maintain, but revitalize one of the world’s preeminent peacekeeping organizations during a period when the legitimacy of its mission has been repeatedly questioned.

In this edition of The Interview, 51łÔąĎ talks to Espinosa GarcĂ©s about the challenges faced by the UN today, from migration and climate change, to gender inequality, racism and autonomous weapons.

Athanasios Dimadis: At a time when global politics is marked by division and rancor, many criticize the UN for its inefficiency, bureaucracy, unwieldiness and even uselessness. In your view, what are the most crucial and pressing reforms that the UN must go through in the next five to 10 years?Ěý

MarĂ­a Fernanda Espinosa GarcĂ©s: Firstly, let me take this opportunity to thank you andĚý51łÔąĎĚýfor inviting me to this interview. The theme of my presidency is “Making the United Nations Relevant to all People,” and to achieve that, the role of the media is crucial to explaining our goals and priorities.

To answer your question: One of the most recurrent topics during the General Debate, which we had in September with over 130 heads of state and government, was the strengthening of multilateralism. You used the word reform, and one of our priorities is the revitalization of the organization, by supporting the UN reform, proposed by the secretary general, under three pillars: peace and security, development, and management reform. Why? Because this is a way to make the UN more relevant, leaner, to produce efficiency, to deliver value for money, to make the real difference to people out there who count on this organization.

The United Nations does tremendous good work that doesn’t make the headlines, but that doesn’t mean that it does not exist — the work of the UN is real, and it’s out there. It promotes conflict prevention, it secures international peace and security, it assists about 80 countries with food security. The UN promotes sustainable development, tackles climate change, stands up for human rights, for gender equality. The UN and its partners vaccinate 45% of children around the world. I could go on.

The General Assembly, which I represent, is the largest democratic body of the UN. We have 193 member states, and each country — independent of size, demographics, geography — each country has one vote. I say that all countries have the same microphone to speak and the same button to vote. So, are there challenges for multilateralism? Yes, of course, and we don’t deny them, but at the same time we do not fear these challenges, we believe that diversity is actually one of our sources of strength, we see dialogue as a powerful political tool, and sometimes in political processes you will have dissent before consent —Ěýthis is fine, it is part of political processes and what makes us interesting and strong.

Dimadis: What are your top priorities for your presidency?

Espinosa Garcés: We have seven, one for each day of the week. My priority is gender equality. As you know, more than half of the world’s population is women. The days of including women in the decision-making spaces are long overdue. We need to be part of any conversation concerning us, but we also have a contribution to make to all decision-making fora. It has been already proven that when women are involved from the start, there is more chance of success and development. You will recall that I dedicated my election to the General Assembly to women in politics, to women and girls who are victims of violence. Gender equality — for me and for this presidency — is not only a trendy concept; it must be a reality to all women out there, and I firmly believe that this is also a task which involves men as real partners.

Another priority is migration and refugees. In December, the General Assembly hosted in Marrakesh, Morocco, an international conference on migration, where member states adopted the . You know, the history of humanity is the history of migration, is the history of people on the move, and this Global Compact, which was agreed upon by all 193 member states of the UN, is the result of collective action, of multilateralism, of safeguarding the rights of migrants, of addressing a transboundary issue — an issue that belongs to us all. I can safely say that nowadays most countries have experienced the phenomenon of migration directly or indirectly.

My other priorities are decent work, people with disabilities, environmental action, youth, peace and security, and the revitalization of the United Nations. These are, in fact, crosscutting priorities. When we talk, for instance, about decent work, we are also touching upon gender equality, but also on people with disabilities who need to be integrated, to have access to decent work. Work opportunities are also important to young people. If they can develop their potential, get a good education and employment, they will be more likely to positively contribute to society instead of being attracted by radicalism or other damaging ideologies.

Environmental action is a crucial priority for us as member states move to implement the Paris Agreement. We need to establish low carbon economies, to finance new, clean technologies, to reduce climate change causing emissions. And this takes collective action — this takes a strong approach to multilateralism and international cooperation. And here, my office is organizing a global campaign against plastic pollution. You know that if we do not revert the levels of plastic pollution, by 2050 there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish stocks? It’s up to us together to act now.

Dimadis: Peace in the Middle East seems to be an ever-moving horizon line. What can finally be done to reach a solution, especially after the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem and has so clearly chosen a side in this conflict once again?

Espinosa GarcĂ©s: The United Nations is fully committed to achieving lasting and sustained peace in the Middle East. You will recall that Resolution 181 was approved by the General Assembly in 1947. Since then, there have been several resolutions by the GA. And not only that; there has been active diplomatic engagement. I have publicly declared that the UN has a debt with the Palestinian people. The goal of achieving a political solution, which will make possible the creation of two states — a Jewish one and a Palestinian one — is a common goal. We cannot forget, however, that this is a process which is assisted by third parties as requested. Several member states are engaged directly in conversations and peace negotiations, as well as regional and international organizations. You will recall that the Quartet on the Middle East, for instance, had two member states and two international organizations —Ěýthe European Union and the UN itself.

And we cannot forget that the decision is made by Israelis and Palestinians, while the role of the UN is to assist as both parties require. From our past resolutions, you know that the General Assembly has positioned itself clearly in regard with recent development on the status of Jerusalem.ĚýAnd I would encourage you and your readers to access these on our website to see how the discussion was conducted and what the General Assembly decided.

Dimadis: In your view, what are the biggest threats to global peace and security right now, and how can they be addressed?Ěý

Espinosa Garcés: Instead of talking about threats, I really would like to focus on solutions. There have been different readings of threats in different times. For instance, the threat to multilateralism, which can risk gains made on peace and security. We are all now very much engaged with the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as one of our biggest threats, as well as nuclear, biological, chemical weapons. Specialists in cybertechnology have raised the issue of lethal autonomous weapons, or killer robots, and all their implications. But at the same time, we have opportunities that can be used for the good of humanity. We have more access to information and immediate access as never before. The same frontier technology that makes us consider potential damaging issues and implications opens new horizons from which young people, the present and future generations, can profit.

The strengthening of multilateralism as we have been seeing in the landmark peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but also in other parts of the world. Another encouraging moment and a great step for multilateralism and disarmament happened in September, when seven countries signed and four ratified, during the high-level week here in New York, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. All these steps lead us to conclude that global challenges are to be solved by global, collective actions. Multilateralism is not one of the ways to solve our challenges; it is actually the only possible way.

Dimadis: The International Organization for Migration has called migration one of the greatest political challenges in our era.ĚýYou have named finalizing the Global Compact on Migration as one of your seven key priorities. Why do you feel the urgency around this goal at this particular moment in time?

Espinosa Garcés: Because today we have a golden opportunity to show that the international community, namely the member states of the UN, is capable and willing to work together to address today’s global challenges. Managing migration is one of today’s global challenges. And member states have managed to agree this year on a Global Compact on Migration, and they now had a chance to be present in Marrakesh for the formal adoption and show the world that we are serious about ensuring that migration is safe, orderly and regular.

Dimadis: The global compact is not legally binding. How can we ensure that not only all UN members adopt the Global Impact but also take actions necessary to achieve the outlined objectives?

Espinosa GarcĂ©s: Implementation will be key.ĚýAnd the Global Compact presents a series of tools that member states can choose to implement in line with their priorities.ĚýIt is also important that we are not beginning from scratch: Many of the practices described in the Global Compact are already being implemented by several member states around the world. The Global Compact allows also for exchange of best practices.

Dimadis: According to , we are witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record: An unprecedented 68.5 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are over 25 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. And yet at this time of record migration, we are also witnessing a rise of nationalism, nationalist and populist rhetoric, especially in the host countries in the West. Some experts believe it is the direct result of these unprecedented levels of human mobility and displacement. Therefore, how do we address this issue of cultural backlash against the “other”? How do we convince governments and the public at large of the benefits of migration?

Espinosa Garcés: While it is true that we are witnessing very high levels of mobility — of migrants, of refugees, but also of people who are displaced within their own countries — I believe that I see things differently; the atmosphere toward migrants and refugees is not predominately negative. I see many positive stories and actions throughout the world that illustrate the positive side, I see many communities acknowledging the positive contribution of migrants, I see many states all around the world actively working to facilitate the successful socio-economic integration of migrants.

However, I agree what we see are the loudest, most sensational stories that play to fears creating a negative global atmosphere.ĚýThe xenophobia, nationalism and racism often play directly into the anti-migrant and anti-refugees sentiment.ĚýMember states — who are the United Nations — have shown their commitment to come together to address the challenges linked to migration, including xenophobia and racism. The fact that member states, in this time of heightened political tensions and debate around migration, have managed to agree on a Global Compact for Migration is a sign of hope and a sign that the ultimate multilateral institutions that are the UN are still relevant and are the best forum to address global challenges in a spirit of cooperation.

Dimadis: Since the UN’s foundation, the United States took on a key role in founding and leading the world’s preeminent organizations and treaties. Recently, however, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement and said the US will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. How detrimental is this rejection of globalism to UN’s efficiency in solving the world’s most intractable issues, without the full participation and commitment from the United States?

Espinosa GarcĂ©s: I am a strong believer in multilateralism, and so I believe are the member states of the UN — as was shown by the numerous heads of states and governments attending the General Debate at the UN this year (the highest-level attendance at that level at the UN headquarters since the 2005 World Summit), several of them underlining the essential role of multilateralism as the only effective way to address global challenges. This being said, as I have stated several times, the United Nations and the General Assembly are a place for dialogue, but also for dissenting dialogue.ĚýOf course I wish that all member states supported international agreements like the Paris climate accord, and that all member states supported the Global Compact for Migration. But, again, dialogue is also about disagreeing. The important thing is to have a dialogue.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post For the United Nations, Multilateralism Is the Way Forward appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Even though the outcomes of the , are to be celebrated as a step in the right direction despite all odds, a somewhat bitter aftertaste remains. In the wake of news that our species has merely 12 years to pull the ship around by making swift changes to global energy infrastructure, it was clear that something had to be done. This year’s COP24 talks resulted in huge fossil fuel divestments, yet the uncomfortable truth is that fighting climate change can only progress with them. It is impossible to abandon fossil fuels overnight, so a more realistic and humane approach to reducing carbon emissions has to be found.

It was a difficult task from the outset. The reporting of the and media on the horrors of climate change and the use of coal has effectively stifled debate and the ability to formulate clear thinking on the subject. The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in its current form has become untouchable, notwithstanding that its goals were highly Western-centric and near impossible to implement on a global scale. Pundits now that COP24 represents a common move of institutions to cut ties to fossil fuel producers — “this most destructive of industries.” But things never are that simple.

In order for the Paris goals to be met, global emissions from power plants, factories, transport and deforestation would have to be in short order. Ironically, not only is this ignorant of the realities on the ground, but, more damningly, it completely misses the point: Developing countries rely on coal and other cheap resources for economic growth, electricity and poverty alleviation. Still, activists and the media chose to on the political game rather than the actual situation, thereby exposing their immaturity when it comes to dealing with pressing issues like climate change.

A case in point is the vicious reaction to US President Donald Trump’s to pull out of the agreement and his ongoing support for the continued use of coal through the promotion of high efficiency, low emissions (HELE) solutions. Even if it is hard to accept, the weight of evidence in concerned countries suggests that favoring technology conducive to reducing the carbon-intensity of fossil fuels is a viable compromise. Which is why the push for HELE is so important. The US a forum at COP24 to advocate use of this tech and to promote the . Originally presented after last year’s climate conference in Bonn, Germany, the alliance is exploring the benefits of more efficient fossil fuel technologies, as well as those — such as carbon capture and storage (CCS)— that have a part to play in reducing emissions in the long term.

Unlike the conventional approach that seeks to cut out all fossil fuels no matter the cost, this initiative sticks out because it takes into account the needs of developing countries. One billion people, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, live without electricity. It’s a problem that adversely impacts development indicators such as health, education, food security and poverty reduction. Furthermore, electrifying the poorest countries and thus improving living conditions is, notably, the primary objective of the (SDG7).

It’s a cruel irony then that the same people who agreed on the SDG7 are also those who now undermine their own good intentions by denying developing countries access to the one energy resource that can bring about these changes. In a move dripping with hypocrisy, global institutions like the World Bank have , thereby denying access to affordable electricity for millions — a dynamic this COP has only reinforced.

The accusation of hypocrisy weighs even heavier considering that African leaders directly confronted World Bank President Jim Yong-kim in October, lamenting how the West is outraged about climate change but African countries out of using fossil fuels. Their outrage is even more understandable since very little has actually been achieved by those who demand radical action and brand themselves as . Far from raising the billions promised to help poor nations fight climate change, rich countries have continually failed to mobilize the a year promised by 2020 to developing states for climate finance. Instead of the money, developing countries only get self-righteous finger-wagging and preachy talks for insisting on using cheap energy sources. But rich countries are willfully ignoring that without funds to finance emission-mitigating technologies like HELE, developing nation’s CO2 emissions will only keep rising.

While it may be hard for us to understand in the plentiful West, in countries like Indonesia, — not climate change — is the most pressing concern. The government seeks to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants, and suggest that within 10 years, energy will be the largest contributor to Indonesian emissions. And it’s not an isolated case: Across Asia, hundreds of gigawatts of new coal-fired power generation is under construction, showing that the growing appetite for coal is unlikely to diminish any time soon.

Developing nations are rightly indignant that Western powers who are responsible for most of the carbon emissions to date — and who are failing on their own climate pledges — are lecturing them on cutting fossil fuel use. Instead of berating the lack of progress in fighting climate change, it would be best to accept that impact could be mitigated without compromising on economic prosperity. More efficient HELE and CSS technologies are the way to go. If COP24 and its successors want to create lasting impact, rational thought and realistic appraisals of global conditions must prevail over myopic ideological fervor.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post COP24: It’s Time for a New Climate Compromise appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

As the world reels from a series of freakish weather phenomena, a new report from the UN suggests climate change will carve the global agricultural community into two camps: winners and losers. What’s particularly troubling is that the “winners” are already thriving, while the losers are clustered in the developing world. If these forecasts come to pass, the world will be more unequal than ever — and billions of people will face potential starvation.

But there’s a ray of hope, and it comes from the myriad new technologies that are transforming the way we farm. These agricultural technologies could help to obviate the effects of climate change and ensure the planet’s population growth doesn’t lead to a global hunger epidemic.

Of course, there are still those who say we’ve nothing to fear, and that climate change is a myth. But those deniers, led by Donald Trump, are being confronted with an ever-growing mountain of evidence in the form of extreme weather patterns, like Hurricane Florence that hit the United States in September. From droughts in Australia to floods in Japan and southern India, the world is witnessing the catastrophic effects of global warming on practically a daily basis.

But beyond these headlines, scientists predict that rising temperatures will have disastrous consequences for the world’s farmers, particularly those in the “global south.” The new from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization finds that climate change will enhance the agricultural potential of countries in more temperate areas, but frazzle growing zones in more tropical climes. The biggest winners will be Russia and Canada, while Europe, the US and Australia will all see an upturn. West Africa, India and their surrounding regions will see their harvests slashed.

This echoes another recent , which concluded that climate change is already driving up hunger levels by triggering droughts and flooding. In fact, scientists have found that of the 51 countries that suffered in 2017, 34 experienced climatic shocks. Many of these countries are also battling political and economic crises, making them doubly vulnerable.

Global Economic Gap

The inescapable conclusion is that climate change will make the global economic gap even wider. Despite concerted efforts to reduce this divide, has fallen only slightly, and some research even indicates that the . Billions of dollars in aid have been channeled to Africa — an will be sent by 2020 — but the US still produces five times the continent’s entire GDP, and that gap will only widen if UN forecasts are realized. Moreover, the developing world is facing a demographic crisis: Over the next 30 years, analysts expect the populations of Africa and Asia to grow 11 times faster than the rest of the world. These regions cannot to lose their most fertile land.

The international community certainly talks a good game on climate change. Practically the entire world has ratified the , which pledges to keep within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. Yet many countries are failing to match their words with actions, as demonstrated most recently by a that ranked more than three-quarters of EU member-states as “poor” for their post-Paris progress.

But as governments flounder, a raft of new technologies is enabling farmers to take matters into their own hands. These technologies allow growers to adapt to climatic conditions, target their use of pesticides more efficiently and improve their output with precision techniques. Most significantly, they facilitate information-sharing across borders, encouraging the spread of best practices and expertise. A prime example is an built by the University of Queensland in Australia that enables beef farmers on the island of Vanuatu to see the performance of their cattle in real time. Such innovation can only lead to efficiency gains, which will be crucial to the developing world as climate change erodes its farmlands.

There are myriad examples of technologies that could have an equally positive impact, from the developed by The Climate Corporation, which uses big data to recommend optimal seeding rates for a particular growing area, to the drones that cover a rice field with pesticide and fertilizer in just 15 minutes. Then there’s vertical farming, which promises to take agriculture away from the fields altogether. The practice involves growing crops in warehouses and shipping containers, turning every terrain on earth into a potential farm. Dubai, unsurprisingly, is an enthusiastic early adopter, and with analysts predicting the market will be worth around , it’s clear this zeal is more than matched elsewhere.

AgTech

Indeed, many countries across Africa and Asia are passionately embracing agricultural technology to obviate the ever-increasing threat of floods and droughts. India’s burgeoning space agency is providing to map the production capacity of its fields; Japan is leading the way in as it attempts to ease the burden on its aging farming population. In Africa, a raft of start-ups is shooting up, from the Nigerian company that farmers with data to help them negotiate prices with unscrupulous merchants to the Kenyan enterprise that channels into irrigation kits.

Now it seems the world’s opinion leaders are taking notice. Billionaire philanthropist the potential of new technologies to offset climate change in the developing world, while the UK government, the world’s second-biggest aid donor, isĚý into partnerships that it says will revolutionize agriculture in Africa. Yet the ominous question remains: Have we found the answer just in time, or too late?

The UN says we have only a few years to avoid , which may not be enough to create a global AgTech revolution. But in a period that has seen more rapid technological change than any other in history, we mustn’t let our optimism be washed away.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post How New Technologies Can Avert Agricultural Devastation appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Eighty-seven wind turbines stood waiting to be “unveiled” off the northwest coast of England. They were to join the other 102 turbines that have been operating since 2011. Named the project, these additional turbines with a capacity of 659MW of power were switched on and connected to the electricity grid on September 6.

The combined Walney I, Walney II and the Walney Extension project, covering an area of 145 square kilometers (55 square miles), is now the world’s largest offshore wind farm with a total capacity to deliver 1,500MW of power. This is enough green power for 1.2 million homes and makes the UK the global leader in offshore wind.

But it seems that this doesn’t represent the current UK government policy position. The arrival of the Climate Change Act in 2008 and the subsequent implementation of electricity market reports created an environment that actively encouraged investment in renewables, particularly wind power. The Walney Extension was among the first renewable energy projects to secure a so-called contract for difference subsidy from the British government. But decisions made by the government in 2015, particularly its withdrawal of support for onshore wind, has seen investment in new projects drop dramatically.

This scenario of uncertainty and confusion in national and international policy directions is hampering what should be a time of considerably more investment in renewables. This is mainly because the costs of renewable power generation are dropping fast to the point where, in 2017, in most parts of the world the average costs of wind and solar power are below that of coal. According to the , in 2017, the average cost of energy in North America (per MWh) was $148 for nuclear, $102 for coal, $60 for gas, $50 for solar and $45 for wind.

So, who is right? Those who are questioning climate change and the wisdom of investment in renewables, or those on the fast and future-bound train of renewables investment?ĚýWhile my book, , provides some of the answers to this question, it doesn’t explain the full picture. In my previous posting on 51łÔąĎ, I gave a brief summary of the large investments in renewable energy. Let’s unpack the picture a little further.

There’s no doubt that renewables are gaining momentum around the world. We know that the storage requirements of wind and solar power (to provide for baseload) present additional costs that may be prohibitive in developing countries. In developed countries, the viability of wind and solar, and the rapid drop in their costs, will continue to present compelling alternatives to fossil-fuel-based energy options. And the downstream positive impacts of growth in renewables are many. They include the likely lifting of the barriers to low carbon electric transport and providing options to mix and match energy sources to suit particular regional situations and requirements.

In developed nations, renewables such as small off-grid solar panels can provide power to homes in remote areas that have never had electricity. The global benefits of providing power to hundreds of millions of people that would normally have no such opportunity is simply staggering.

When I think of the current status of global climate change action and the rapid expansion of renewable energy capacity, I have a recurrent image in my head: A group of people is standing at a train station holding maps, timetables and graphs and arguing amongst itself. While they wait, and argue, a modern aerodynamically impressive, futuristic-looking train speeds toward the station, and the people on the train wave and smile as they whoosh past the station. The people on the station go back to looking at their maps and arguing.

This image (perhaps a cartoon) is symbolic of my being intrigued by the divide that appears to exist between those who seem to think renewables are a great idea and now make economic sense, and those who seem to still think that renewables are a bad, ideologically driven idea.ĚýWhat is apparent in today’s energy and climate debate is that in certain corners of the world market forces seem to be moving ahead of political will and policy, including mine. The picture is disparate and complicated, and while investment in renewables is gaining momentum, this momentum is patchy.

There appears to be a continuing struggle between economic rationalism and efforts to abate greenhouse gas emissions and, in particular, commitment to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. I have no doubt that such struggle and disjointedness in the introduction of renewables into the mix of the global energy supply is inevitable.ĚýAfter all, it’s another industrial revolution of sorts — one that is green in color instead of a black sooty one.

There is little doubt that over the next decade the costs of renewables will continue to decrease, and relentless advances in the technology — not least of which will involve storage, combined with new financial models and contractual arrangements — will make it more difficult for conservative politics to ignore market forces, even in the absence of political will or mandate.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Why Is There Still a Lack of Political Will for Renewables? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The entire Northern Hemisphere has been in the grips of an unprecedented heat wave this year. Asia, Europe, Africa and North America saw several countries reeling under record-breaking temperatures. In 1977, recorded the highest ever temperature in continental Europe at 48°C. That record may very well be broken by the Ěýcurrently sweeping the Iberian Peninsula.

In , the deadly heat wave killed 96 people in July aloneĚý— a number that is likely to increase 170% by 2080. Kumagaya, near Tokyo, has seen temperatures (106°F) for the first time in the country’s history, with more than 22,000 people, predominantly elderly, seeking across Japan. Heat stroke from sustained high temperatures has claimed the lives of 29 people in , where temperatures reached the highest point in 111 years in the capital Seoul.

In Quebec province alone, more than 34 people have lost their lives on account of the heat wave, with an estimated 70 deaths attributed to the scorching temperature and high humidity across . The United States celebrated its Independence Day with blistering temperatures across the and 80 million people in 14 states under a heat advisory warning. The Death Valley in the Mojave Desert in California holds the record for the measured on planet Earth at 56.7°C (134°F). While that record set in 1913 still holds, Death Valley has seen the to date, with the monthly average temperatures above 42°C (107°F), with the mercury topping 52.7°C (127°F) four days in a row.

What is a heat wave?

This is not the first heat wave the world has seen. However, what ought to be concerning everyone is the increased frequency and deadliness of these occurrences. Europe saw its worst heat wave in 500 years in 2003, which claimed the lives of more than . In just 15 years, Europe is reeling from another heat wave with record-setting temperatures. Even , known for its frigid temperatures, saw one of a kind heat wave in 2010 that covered an exceptionally large area of 400,000 square miles. In Asia, barely 13 years after over 1,000 people died from extreme heat in 2002, India saw another killer heat wave in 2015. Since the US Environmental Protection Agency started recording heat waves, America has seen instances, with the deadliest ones occurring in 1896, 1934, 1936, 1954, 1980, 1988, 1995, 2006, 2012, and 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as a “marked unusual hot weather (Max, Min and daily average) over a region persisting at least two consecutive days during the hot period of the year based on local climatological conditions, with thermal conditions recorded above given thresholds.” There are currently 34 countries that have a formal definition for a heat wave. Interestingly, the official definition of what constitutes a heat wave varies from country to country, though not differing in principle from WMO’s definition.ĚýExceeding 25°C would be considered a heat wave in countries that usually enjoy mild weather, whereas the threshold is much higher in tropical countries. This is why WMO’s definition is broad allowing individual countries adopt it to their local climatological conditions.

Denmark defines a heat wave as a period of three consecutive days where the average maximum temperature across 50% of the country exceeds 28°C (82.4°F). Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands share the definition of a heat wave as five consecutive days where the temperature exceeds 25°C (77°F), including three where the temperature tops 30°C (86°F). India, which consistently sees heat waves year after year, defines it as one when the temperature exceeds 40°C (104°F) in the plains and 30°C (86°F) in the mountainous regions. When the temperature reaches 46°C (114.8 °F), the Indian Meteorological Department classifies the event as an extreme heat wave.

Scientific studies have found that man-made climate change has raised the probability of natural disasters like hurricanes, heat waves and wildfires. Analyzing the data from seven stations in Europe, researchers have determined that the probability of heat waves occurring across the continent as a consequence of human activity has increased .

“Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States,”Ěýsays Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), adding that “the ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting.” NCAR’s and analysis shows that since the turn of the century, the number of record hot days have outpaced record cold days by two to one. If humankind does not curb greenhouse gas emissions, NCAR’s model predicts 20 record hot days for each record cold day by middle of this century.

Human activity since mid-20thĚýcentury has resulted in unprecedented amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Indisputable can be seen in the steady increase of sea levels, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, extreme hurricanes and other weather events including a global rise in temperature. A group of 1,300 independent scientific experts has concluded that human activity in the last five decades has warmed our planet, with devastating . The from 18 reputed scientific associations is unambiguous: Our planet is warming as a direct consequence of human activity.

It’s time to heal our planet

In December 2015, 195 nations came together in Paris to sign an accord to . They agreed to keep the temperature rise this century well below 2°C from pre-industrial levels in an effort to save humanity from the devastating effects of global warming. The historic accord signed by almost all the nations of the world is a crucial first step in arresting the harsh effects of climate change, including the likes of the current heat wave.

Sadly, defying scientific consensus, an incompetent and short-sighted Trump administration pulled America out of the Paris Climate Agreement — an act this author views as a crime against humanity. However, this was before the heat wave of 2018 affected the entire Northern Hemisphere, including America. In a conducted by University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College in May 2018, 73% of Americans accept the evidence of global warming, with 60% of them also accepting that human activity plays a part.

The world needs America’s full participation in the fight against climate change. As the largest of world’s resources and second largest gas emitter, America has a responsibility to humankind to do more than its fair share in combatting climate change.

The earth cannot survive sustained increase in temperatures of more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. show that we are at serious risk of reaching a threshold that would cause an irreversible chain reaction resulting in our planet becoming a hothouse if we do not stick to the decisions outlined in Paris. For all the climate change skeptics out there, one can only hope that the 2018 heat wave becomes a and puts an end to their denial.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ĚýĚý/

The post Why the Heat Wave Should Worry Us appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

This last year California had two of the most devastating fires in its history, with a firestorm that burned 245,000 acres and killed 44 people. The cost to the economy was over . Just seven weeks later, the wildfires in the southern part of the state burned 307,900 acres and over 250,000 people were forced to evacuate. In 2016, , another fire prone state, saw 1,190 wildfires, burning nearly 130,000 acres in total.

California, Colorado and much of the western United States are used to droughts, and we understand that they lead to wildfires. But now we need to add landslides to the list of natural disasters we must prepare for. In fact, according the US Geological Survey, disastrous slides can occur in all 50 states, with regions like the Appalachian Mountains, the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Coastal Ranges particularly vulnerable to landslides. Is it time to pay more attention to climate change?

The warmest five years on record have occurred since 2006, with 2017 being one of the warmest yet. This triggers four phenomena: drought, wildfires, more intense rainstorms and, finally, landslides. We know that warming temperatures can lead to drought, but drought in itself is part of a cyclical effect: Under warmer conditions, more precipitation falls as rain than snow. This means that less water is stored as snow in the winter months, leading to a shortage of accessible water in the long term (or drought), and more flooding in the short term.

Drought causes a massive die-off of trees, as seen throughout the western US. Experts estimate that there are over 100 million dead trees as a direct result of the drought. With parched landscapes, especially in forest areas, wildfires are also more frequent and far more intense. Fires in the west have been hotter and more massive in scale than ever before, and vast tracts of land have been denuded by fire.

Warmer oceans lead to more evaporation, sending more water into the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere, in turn, has the capacity to hold onto more of this moisture, which then comes back down in the form of heavier rainfall. These rainstorms are therefore more intense, causing groundwater levels to rise and increasing the likelihood of landslides.

When you combine more intense rainstorms and barren landscapes caused by fire, you get landslides. This is no longer conjecture. A 2014 slide in , Washington state, killed 43 people, the deadliest in US history, and the December 2017 landslide in Montecito, California, killed 41. Up to 15 feet in height and moving as quickly at 20 mph, these landslides create a specter of what we need to plan for in any of our mountainous regions.

Being awakened in the middle of the night to emergency sirens warning of an impending landslide used to be something that only a few homeowners perched on the side of steep slopes worried about. But as the devastating slides of late 2017 have shown us, that threat is now present in many more places, thanks in no small part to climate change. You don’t have to be a climate scientist, or a rocket scientist, to see that our climate is changing. So, what should we do?

Three things. First, we need to send a message to D.C. that tackling climate change must be a priority. Second, we need to send a message to the rest of the world that states like Washington, Oregon and California will continue to be global leaders in reducing our carbon footprint even after the White House declared that the US is withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord.

And, finally, we need to continue to encourage a culture that fosters innovative companies like Tesla, Sunpower and AirBnB, whose mission is to contribute to a decreased global carbon footprint. We may not be able to control the powers of nature, but every state can do its part to tackle these challenges head on.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ĚýĚý/

The post Is Climate Change Causing America’s Catastrophic Landslides? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

In October 2016, at the in Quito, Ecuador, launched its third planning cycle with , now known as the . The agenda defines the work of the global urban community until 2036, by which time humanity will be well on its way to an estimated 2050 population of 10 billion — two-thirds of which will be urban dwellers. The New Urban Agenda established an ambitious and aspirational plan for how the world will manage the intensified process of what French philosopher Henri Lefebvre, writing in 1970 termed, “.”

Habitat III was part of a larger process within the community of experts and practitioners working on the great problems of the 21^st century: climate change, energy transition, food and water insecurity, demographic shifts (growth, aging and urbanization), pandemics, ecological degradation, economic stress and political instability, among others. Prior to Habitat III, their ambitions constituted what is known as the post-2015 development agenda. The year 2015 was significant because it marked the renewal and reinforcement of several key development agendas. The first was United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Relief’s re-worked disaster risk reduction platform, the 2015 , followed by the (SDGs) in September 2015, the in December 2015 and, ultimately, Habitat III in October 2016.

Replicating Power Structures

Many see the New Urban Agenda as the key to humanity’s ability to weather a perfect storm of global crises. As the roadmap for surviving the 21^st century, it carries an immense burden, and those working to make its vision for inclusive and sustainable urbanism a reality must contemplate a wide array of wicked problems. At Quito, however, it became clear to many observers that the New Urban Agenda was a mile wide in ambition, but not even an inch deep with concrete plans for implementation. Session after session deferred the tedium of substantive action by insisting that the work ahead was to figure out how to implement the fine words of the document. That work would be undertaken in Kuala Lumpur, at the in February 2018.

The task of the forum was to figure out how to implement the New Urban Agenda. The forum focused on the SDGs, especially , which aims to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.” It was an appropriate focus for a gathering of the world’s city-engaged human development experts and practitioners, providing a place to compare notes, promote best practices and network. This, however, is not the full story.

The plausible, if skeptical, take is that World Urban Forum 9 was about reproducing a development agenda deeply entrenched in the Washington Consensus values of market liberalization and institutional commodification. The presence of experts who ostensibly control the knowledge behind the agenda added a whiff of legitimacy. The featured a dizzying array of workshops that had the common narrative of “hearing from the audience” and fostering “participatory development.” However, the content and many of the messages appeared to be driven by funder or grant mandates. Left wanting, in many cases, were those who came to learn something practical: how to provide water in informal settlements, how to prepare for climate change or how to improve waste disposal.

Many sessions had a neo-colonial atmosphere as representatives from the privileged global minority — heads of agencies, NGOs, research institutes, graduate programs, corporations and financial institutions — chaired sessions and monopolized talk time. It was a scene profoundly reminiscent of the global development process of the past half-century.

Smart Cities

A new development at World Urban Forum 9 was the emergence of smart cities as a meta narrative for the New Urban Agenda’s implementation. The forum featured a proliferation of sessions about smart city technologies, plenary speakers dropped the term as the gold standard in sustainable and inclusive urban planning, and many exhibition booths featured strident declarations about the intersection of green, smart and inclusive — all underpinned by the vast potential of technology. Considering that Habitat III’s New Urban Agenda scarcely mentions smart cities, the term’s ubiquity at World Urban Forum 9 merits some contemplation.

Smart cities have abruptly appeared on the agenda for a combination of reasons. First, the world’s urban pontificators — a faddish lot — need a flashy concept to embody the implementation solution for the New Urban Agenda. Second, in its ambiguity the smart cities concept has become a canvas onto which many agendas are splattered. This versatility makes smart cities more a convenient placeholder for a normative vision of 21^st-century urbanism than a substantive solution that can be implemented. Third, and perhaps most importantly, smart cities are where the big money is flowing. Cisco Systems, Microsoft and Google, among many other corporate players, are all committing to smart cities, and they stand to capture a growing piece of the speculative capital that sloshes around the global markets.

One panelist representing an association of urban designers reported on a meeting he had with Google and Microsoft. The technology giants told him that they were going to build smart cities with or without the planners, designers and policymakers. Smart cities are the new avenue for speculative investment, what Lefebvre once called the “secondary circuit of capital.” Hot money from the information technology sector is converging with the same in real estate, a match made in shareholder heaven. Capital manages to reproduce itself because of, and even in spite of, global crises in climate, the economy and socio-economic inequality.

Surface Level

In Kuala Lumpur, World Urban Forum 9 delegates demonstrated great facility engaging the smart city narrative. A running theme: By embedding emerging technologies such as the internet of things into the fabric of urban infrastructure, cities will become more efficient. Some delegates even elevated these claims to argue that technology can facilitate empowerment and reduce social and economic barriers. Such propositions — more acts of faith than proven formulae — were articulated in sessions long on rhetoric but short on evidence. There appeared to be little concern that the mistakes of planning and policymaking — constant across the many fads of 20^th-century development history — would be gleefully repeated.

Data about improved efficiency is punchy, intuitive and convincing at the surface level. What is needed now is a follow-up conference to address basic questions about the context of such efficiency. Technocratic approaches apply meaningfully in service-related issues such as energy reduction, water conservation and transit reliability. However, deeper social issues are rarely described in terms of efficiency. What efficiency will technology offer to address day care for children, health care for the elderly, food for the hungry or housing for the slum dwellers? Will smart cities precipitate what Steve Hallett calls the “,” where increased efficiencies result only in greater consumption that undermines broader social, environmental or economic progress?

Urban efficiency can also be considered through the perspective of Joseph Tainter’s , which exhibits how adding complexity to an already complex system results in diminishing returns, accelerating unsustainability and ultimately collapse. Echoing this concept, Thomas Homer-Dixon’s argues that technological fixes — such as the smart city solution for the New Urban Agenda — make a system more complex, resulting in “wicked problems” that require ever more extensive technological remedies. This cycle continues until society reaches a threshold gap in technological capability; human ingenuity would fail to solve the wicked problems created by previous technology iterations. Each iteration must one-up the previous to stay ahead, but as in a Ponzi scheme, the material obligations are deferred to a later time —Ěýor a better technology.

Most importantly, lurking within the World Urban Forum 9’s void of deep meaning are distributional questions about efficiency. Who wins, and who loses? Should we view smart cities, like South Korea’s , as the boutique urbanism of 21^st-century fortress communities, protecting the global minority from a perfect storm of climate, economic and security crises? What does smart city efficiency mean for the global majority, including one and a half billion slum dwellers? Do smart cities represent a more efficient mechanism of marginalization and exclusion, even in service to the New Urban Agenda’s vision of inclusive and sustainable urbanism?

We call on more critical discussions to understand smart cities in their broader systemic context. Their promise will be realized only when smart cities prove that their social value is greater than their political worth as mayoral playthings or their economic worth as a fleeting market fetish.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ĚýĚý/

The post No Silver Bullet: The New Urban Agenda and Smart Cities appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Evil is a popular topic in Hollywood, fromĚýThe Evil DeadĚýfranchise to Dr. Evil in theĚýAustin PowersĚýmovies. But evil makes only the occasional cameo in the US policy realm. In the early 1990s, the topic of evil became buzzworthy in the wake of the Cold War’s collapse as pundits and policymakers tried to understand the unfolding horrors in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

In June 1991,Ěý kicked off the trend byĚýasking on its coverĚýwhether evil exists “or do bad things just happen?” As ĚýwroteĚýin the cover story, “Saddam Hussein raised atavistic questions about evil. But the West has grown preoccupied by newer forms — greed, terrorism, drugs, AIDS, crime, child abuse, global pollution, oil spills, acid rain.” These newer strains of evil would become considerably more virulent throughout the decade even as the atavistic varieties refused to stay dead.

In 2001, evil made another comeback after the attacks on 9/11 in New York and Washington. President George W. Bush called the attacks “evil” andĚýĚýfor resorting to such theological language at that time and frequently afterward. But that didn’t stop others from diving into the topic with gusto. Philosophers, journalists, and writers published a number of books in 2002 on the subject of evil, from philosopher Ěýto journalist Samantha Power’s book on genocide,ĚýA Problem from Hell.

And now the E-word has renewed currency in the first year of the Trump administration. After the largest mass shooting in US history last October in Las Vegas, President Donald Trump called the act “pure evil,” echoing . Some Republican lawmakers eagerly embraced this kind of language as theyĚý. After all, they argued, evil can’t be legislated away. Meanwhile, as he casts his eye overseas, Trump has usually reserved his use of “evil” for actors that just happen to be Muslim, from theĚýĚýtoĚý, which no doubt thrills his evangelical supporters.

Most of the reflections on evil in the United States center on people “out there.” Why were Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and the machete wielders in Rwanda evil? Why did the 9/11 hijackers do the evil things that they did? What motivates the evil acts of the Islamic State? Even when the lens is turned on American society, the focus tends to be on those on the pathological margins, like serial murderers and child abductors.

Oh, of course, figures on the far right have no problem throwing around the E-word more liberally — when talking about Islam (), gay people (failed Alabama politicianĚý), abortion providers () and the like. Generally, though, evil is a topic for the pulpit, not politics.

A Force for Evil

But what happens when evil takes a very different form, not on the margins of society, but at its very center? What happens when evil takes a seat behind the desk of the Oval Office?

I know about Godwin’s law — that, as discussion threads grow longer on the internet, the likelihood of a comparison to Hitler increases. I’m not going to compare Donald Trump to Hitler. I am also well aware of the dangers of trivializing evil by using it “frivolously,” as the political scientist Ěýwarned recentlyĚýinĚýThe Atlantic. If everything is evil, then nothing is evil.

But I want to take seriously the proposition that we don’t just have an incompetent president. We don’t just have a rude president. We don’t just have a lying president. We don’t just have a racist, misogynist president. Such judgments have become commonplace, shared by columnists of the left and right — for instance in last week’s assessment of Trump’s first year in the Sunday Review ofĚýThe New York Times —Ěýand embraced as well by some prominent conservative politicians like Arizona Republican Jeff Flake.

Let’s go one step further: What if we actually have anĚýevilĚýpresident? In his first year in office, and particularly on foreign policy, Donald Trump has been a force for evil. I’m not arguing that he is personally evil, only that he does evil things. Nor am I speaking theologically. I don’t believe that Trump sold his soul to the devil in exchange for wealth and worldly power.

I set the bar higher. For me, bringing the world to the edge of nuclear holocaust, destroying the planet for future generations and engaging in ethnic cleansing in the here and now are evil. And Trump, his pinkie finger pressed to his lips, has decisively shifted US policy in these directions.

But what’s truly astonishing about the last year of American history is that many of the folks who routinely throw around the E-word, particularly in the conservative and evangelical communities, have been entirely silent about Trump’s sins. Indeed, with the exception of #NeverTrump conservatives and evangelicals of color, these two communities remain in Trump’s cheering section despite all their blather about right and wrong. It’s bad enough that they bent over backward to rationalize Roy Moore’s predatory conduct toward girls and Trump’s serial adultery.

The bigger problem is Trump’s attitude to the world as a whole. For the past 30 years or so, progressives have strategically focused on political and economic issues. It’s been the conservatives who’ve achieved electoral success by focusing on moral issues. Perhaps it’s time for progressives to recapture the energy of the civil rights movement — which at root addressed the moral crisis of post-war America — and start talking about right and wrong.

Let’s start at the top.

What Is an Evil Foreign Policy?

As a Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to shake up American foreign policy. According to an assessment of Trump’s first year by the perceptive , Trump has largely failed to fulfill his promises, from ripping up the nuclear treaty with Iran to building a wall on the border at Mexico’s expense.

Simply put, they say, Trump has collided with the same roadblock that Barack Obama did: the foreign policy establishment in Washington. Having failed to transform, Trump is now pursuing the same old tired foreign policy of his predecessors, but with much greater incompetence.

There is much truth to this argument. The Trump administration is pursuing many of the failed policies of the past — surging in Afghanistan, regime change in Syria, containment of Iran, greater military spending, burden-sharing with allies in Europe and Asia, alternately wooing and threatening China and so on. Trump’s attempt to impose his vision of economic nationalism has largely gone nowhere because of pushback within his own administration (though he didĚýĚýa 30% tariff on solar panel imports). His decision to repair fences with Russia encountered resistance from the “.”

These failures contribute to the portrait of Trump as a frustrated revolutionary. The conventional policies that Trump has fallen back upon may be violent, stupid, and self-defeating. But they rarely approach the level of evil. Still, Trump has departed in several important ways from the foreign policy mainstream. And these exceptions go beyond commonplace malevolence. In focusing on just three issues — nuclear weapons, climate change and immigration — I want to highlight not the everyday evil of the Charlie Manson or Abu Ghraib variety, butĚýexistentialĚýevil. Such evil threatens the existence of the world or a large subset thereof.

The most urgent of these threats involves nuclear weapons. Even as a candidate, Donald Trump showed a fondness for nuclear weapons. Although he spoke of nuclear proliferation as the greatest threat facing the world, he entertained the idea of allies . When asked at a town meeting in April 2016 about whether he would ever consider using nuclear weapons,Ěýhe said, “.” He followed up by asking why else would people continue to make them.

As president, Trump has doubled down on his nuclear fixation by advocating a tenfold increase in the US nuclear arsenal. Indeed, it was after the meeting where Trump made this surprise proposal that

But it’s been Trump’s willingness to bring the United States to the brink of nuclear war that truly qualifies as evil. At one point, during an escalating battle on Twitter, he threatened to rain down “fire and fury” upon North Korea. Lest you think this is just rhetorical overload, the administration continues to consider seriously a — the so-called “bloody nose” attack — whichĚýcould precipitateĚýconventional retaliation that would put a million people at risk in the greater Seoul metropolitan area or escalate to a nuclear exchange that would exterminate a much larger portion of the world’s population.

This is no mere contingency plan, which the Pentagon routinely draws up to address potential problems. Trump has spoken of attacking North Korea so often that last month his confidant .

Congress is so concerned about Trump’s itchy trigger finger that several members haveĚý.ĚýThe Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which advanced its Doomsday Clock to a sobering two-and-a-half minutes to midnight in 2017, will this week move the minute handĚý.

Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment and assume charitably that Ěýto put the fear of god into North Korea (or China). Perhaps. After all, the Pentagon is well aware of the risks of such a strategy. But in pursuing this game of chicken with North Korea, Trump greatly increases the risk of accidental war. With both sides on high alert, the dangers of miscalculation become palpable. Whether through bravado or miscalculation, Trump threatens to do something that only evil characters in comic books talk about: destroy the world.

Trash the Future

With his policy on climate change, meanwhile, Trump aspires to destroy the future as well (just in case the world manages to avoid apocalypse in the present).

Before he even became a presidential candidate, Trump made no bones about his climate change denial. HeĚýĚýin 2012 that the “concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” He has repeatedly referred to climate change as a “hoax.” So, it’s no surprise that, as president, he withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement.

Of course, even if all countries adhered to the agreement’s non-obligatory pledges, the to below the 2% increase over pre-industrial levels that the Paris signatories aspired to reach. So, Donald Trump cannot be held solely responsible for sending Miami underwater. But this four-year period may prove critical in terms of a tipping point. Concerted US leadership — indeed, more concerted than what Obama provided — might have made a big difference. Trump doesn’t just represent an opportunity cost. He’s pushing US leadership in the opposite direction.

And it’s not just climate change. Unlike other parts of his agenda,Ěý, “when it comes to environmentĚýand energy policy, the president largely seems to be living up to campaign promisesĚýhe first laid outĚýinĚýa speech inĚýMay 2016.”

Trump has moved full speed ahead in offering up as much US real estate as he can to those who want to monetize the land, the sea and what lies beneath. In one year, he approved the Keystone Pipeline, ended restrictions on oil and gas drilling (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), started to roll back the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and allowed his minion at the EPA, Scott Pruitt, to gut environmental regulations. It’s an extraordinary policy of pillage that perhaps only the Vikings could properly appreciate.

You might object that Miami isn’t currently under water any more than nuclear war is currently under way. Can a policy be evil if merely makes an evil result more likely?

There is no disagreement that a nuclear holocaust or a drowned world would be catastrophic. To make the first more likely and the second more irreversible, because of the sheer number of lives at stake, qualifies as evil. In a searing essay inĚýCommonwealĚýin 1962, the theologian , “The actual destruction of the human race is an enormous evil, but it is still, in itself, only a physical evil. Yet the free choice of global suicide, made in desperation by the world’s leaders and ratified by the consent and cooperation of all their citizens, would be a moral evil second only to the crucifixion.” Climate change falls into this second category.

Destroy the Past

Finally, with his immigration policy, Donald Trump is out to destroy the past as well. What has made America great has been its immigrants (excepting, of course, the original immigrants from Europe who massacred the indigenous population). Now Donald Trump would like to remake the United States in Norway’s image — white as the Scandinavian snow.

By deporting large numbers of undocumented workers and restricting the flow of immigrants from largely non-white countries, Trump is engaged in a form of ethnic cleansing. He is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area” —ĚýĚýdefinition — in an attempt to reverse the demographic trends that, unchecked, will make the United States majority non-whiteĚý.

After Trump told FBI graduates last month that countries were sending America “the worst of the worst,” journalist ĚýwroteĚýin Salon:

[Trump’s] most recent claims that immigrants are trash who will despoil (white) America is just the latest chapter in a hate-filled epic from a man who has suggested a national registry for Muslims, wants to bar people from entire regions and countries from the United States, has proposed publicly posting the names and pictures of “illegal immigrants” who commit crimes (as the Nazis did with alleged Jewish criminals in Germany), and believes that an entire ethnic group comes to America in order to rape and kill (white) women.

Racism raised to the level of Trump’s rants and raves is, yes, evil.

He is not rounding up Salvadorans and Nicaraguans and Hondurans and killing them. But beginning with the 200,000 Salvadorans who will soon lose their Temporary Protective Status (TPS), the Trump administration is preparing to send people back to countries that are extraordinarily unsafe, where many of the deportees would face threats to their lives on return.

“Women and girls, though, are in the most danger,”Ěý. “Stripped of TPS, they now face not only the fear of family separation, but also the prospect of returning to a country which has one of the highest rates of violent homicide of women in the world. Deportation could be a death sentence.”

Past, present and future: Donald Trump’s evil is truly multidimensional. It’s one thing for someone jerked around by the global economy and the US political elite to vote for Donald Trump as a protest against an unfair status quo. It’s quite another for politicians to side with Trump knowing full well the extent of his malevolence. The former is misguided. The latter is evil.

Whose Morality?

Conservatives have developedĚýa whole discourseĚýaround the notion that the , that a poisonous “moral relativism” hasĚýĚýof identifying the devil’s work when they see it. As (R-WI)Ěýput itĚýin an interview back in 2011: “If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics — I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”

With this label of moral relativism, conservatives have accused the left of making excuses for any or all of the following evils: the Soviet Union, communism, abortion, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, reverse discrimination, Cuba, socialism, taxes, fluoridation and the crash of the Hindenburg. ()kay, maybe not this last one).

I don’t really want to wade into this particular debate other than to point out that Trump supporters have engaged in their own amazing bouts of moral relativism. They have looked the other way not just from the human rights abuses of some right-wing crackpot in a distant country or the ethnic cleansing carried out by some dubious US ally. They are averting their eyes from what the president of the United States is doing.

It’s not just the routine idiocies of US foreign policy. It’s not just the personality defects of the president himself (like, for instance, a libido gone wild). When it comes to nuclear weapons, climate change and immigration policy, Donald Trump is actually doing evil. And his party, with a few naysayers, is behind him 100%.

Washington insiders will no doubt point out that, by declaring Trump’s actions evil, I’m thereby cutting off all possibility of engaging constructively with the administration. To which I have a succinct reply: exactly. That’s the point.

To quote former Vice President Dick Cheney, someone who has had more than a passing acquaintance with the dark side, you don’t negotiate with evil. You defeat evil.

The post The Case that Trump Is, Well, Evil appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

In its own inside-out, upside-down way, it’s almost wondrous to behold. As befits our president’s wildest dreams, it may even prove to be a record for the ages, one for the history books. He was, after all, the candidate who sensed it first. When those he was running against, like theĚýrestĚýof , were still insisting that the United States remained at the top of its game, not an butĚýtheĚý“,” the only truly “” one on the face of the Earth, he said nothing of the sort. He campaigned on America’s decline, on this country’s increasing lack of exceptionality, its potential dispensability. He ran on the single word “again” — as in “Make America Great Again” — because, the implication was it just isn’t anymore. And he swore that he and he alone was the best shot Americans, or at least non-immigrant white Americans, had at ever seeing the best of days again.

In that sense, he was ourĚýĚýfor president, and if that didn’t tell you something during the election season, it should have. No question about it, he hit a chord, rang a bell, because out in the heartland it was possible to sense a deepening reality that wasn’t evident in Washington. The wealthiest country on the planet, the most militarily powerful in the history of … well, anybody, anywhere, anytime, or so we wereĚý,Ěýcouldn’t win a war, not even with the investment ofĚýĚýof taxpayer dollars, couldn’t do anything but spread chaos by force of arms.

Meanwhile, at home, despite all that wealth, despiteĚý, including the one running for president, despite the transnational corporate heaven inhabited by Google and Facebook and Apple and the rest of the crew, parts of this country and its infrastructure were starting to feel distinctly, to use a word from another universe, Third Worldish. He sensed that, too. He regularlyĚýĚýthings like this: “We spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East, we got nothing. … And we have an obsolete plane system. We have obsolete airports. We have obsolete trains. We have bad roads. Airports.” AndĚý: “Our airports are like from a third-world country.” And on the nation’sĚý, he couldn’t have been more on the mark.

Not Our Future

In parts of the US, white working-class andĚýĚýAmericans could sense that the future was no longer theirs, that their children would not have a shot at what they had had, that they themselves increasingly didn’t have a shot at what they had had. The American Dream seemed to be gaining an almost nightmarish sheen, given that the real value of the average wage of a workerĚýĚýsince the 1970s; that theĚý had gone through the roof and the educationalĚýĚýfor children with dreams of getting ahead was now staggering; that unions wereĚý; that income inequality was at aĚý; and — well, you know the story — really you do. In essence, for them the famed American Dream seemed ever more like someone else’s trademarked property.

Indispensable? Exceptional? This country? Not anymore. Not as they were experiencing it.

And because of that, Donald Trump won the lottery. He answered theĚý. (If you’re not of a certain age, Google it, but believe me it’s a reference in our president’s memory book.) He entered the Oval Office withĚýĚýof the vote and a fervent base of support for his promised program of doing it all over again,Ěý.

It had been one hell of a pitch from the businessman billionaire. He had promised a future of stratosphericĚý, of greatness on an historic scale. He promised to keep the evil ones — theĚý, job thieves and terrorists — away, toĚýĚýthem offĚýorĚýĚýthem out orĚýĚýthem from ever traveling here. He also promised to set incredible records, as only a mega-businessman like him could conceivably do, the sort of all-American records this country hadn’t seen in a long, long time. And early as it is in the Trump era, it seems as if, on one score at least, he could deliver something for the record books going back to the times when those recording the acts of rulers were still scratching them out inĚý.

At this point, there’s at least a chance that Donald Trump might preside over the most precipitous decline of a truly dominant power in history, one only recently considered at the height of its glory. It could prove to be a fall for the ages. Admittedly, that other superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, imploded in 1991, which was about the fastest way imaginable to leave the global stage. Still, despite the “” talk of that era, the USSR was always the secondary, the weaker of the two superpowers. It was never Rome, or Spain or Great Britain.

When it comes to the United States, we’re talking about a country that not so long ago saw itself as the only great power left on planet Earth, “the lone superpower.” It was the one still standing, triumphant, at the end of a history of great power rivalry that went back to a time when the wooden warships of various European states first broke out into a larger world and began to conquer it. It stood by itself at, as its proponents liked to claim at the time, theĚý.

Hard Power forĚýa Failing World

As we watch, it seems almost possible to see President Trump, in real time, tweet byĚý, speech byĚý, sword dance byĚý, intervention by intervention, act by act, in the process of dismantling the system of global power — of “soft power” in particular and of alliances of every sort — by which the US made its will felt, made itself a truly global hegemon. Whether his “America First” policies are aimed at creating a future order ofĚý, orĚý, or are nothing more than the expression of his libidinous urges and secret hatreds, he may already be succeeding in taking down that world order in record fashion.

Despite the mainstream pieties of the moment about the nature of the system Donald Trump appears to be dismantling in Europe and elsewhere, it was anything but either terribly “liberal” or particularly peaceable. Wars, invasions, occupations, the undermining or overthrow of governments, brutal acts and conflicts of every sort succeeded one another in the years of American glory. Past administrations in Washington had a notorious weakness for autocrats, just as Donald Trump does today. They regularly had less thanĚýĚýfor democracy if, from Iran to Guatemala to Chile, the will of the people seemed to stand in Washington’s way.

It is, as Vladimir Putin has been only too happy to point out of late, an irony of our moment that the country that has undermined or overthrown or meddled inĚýĚýthan any other is in a total snit over the possibility that one of its own elections was meddled with. To enforce their global system, Americans never shied away fromĚý,Ěý,Ěý,ĚýĚýand other grim practices. In those years, the US planted its military on close toĚý, garrisoning the planet as no other country ever had.

Nonetheless, the cancelling of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, threats against NAFTA, the undermining of NATO, the promise ofĚýĚýon foreign goods (and the possible trade wars that might go with them) could go a long way toward dismantling the American global system of soft power and economic dominance as it has existed in these last decades. If such acts and others like them prove effective in the months and years to come, they will leave only one kind of power in the American global quiver: hard military power, and its handmaiden, the kind of covert power Washington, through the CIA in particular, has long specialized in.

If America’s alliances crack open and its soft power becomes too angry or edgy to pass for dominant power anymore, its massive machinery of destruction will still be left, including its vastĚý. While in the Trump era a drive to cut domestic spending of every sort is evident,ĚýĚýis still slated to go to the military, already funded at levels not reached byĚýĚýof other major powers.

Given the last 15 years ofĚý, it’s not hard to imagine what’s likely to result from the further elevation of military power: disaster. This is especially true because Donald Trump has appointed to key positions in his administration aĚýĚýwho spent the last decade and a half fighting America’s catastrophic wars across the Greater Middle East. They are not only notoriously incapable of thinking outside the box about the application of military power, but faced with the crisis of failed wars andĚý, of spreading terror movements and a growingĚýĚýacross that crucial region, they can evidently only imagine one solution to just about any problem: more of the same. MoreĚý, moreĚý, more military trainers and advisers, moreĚý, moreĚýĚý…Ěý.

After a decade and a half of such thinking, we already know perfectly well where this ends —Ěýin further failure, more chaos and suffering, but above all in an inability of the US to effectively apply its hard power anywhere in any way that doesn’t make matters worse. Since, in addition, the Trump administration is filled with Iranophobes, including a president who has only recently fused himself to the Saudi royal family in an attempt to further isolate and undermine Iran, the possibility that a military-first version of American foreign policy will spread further is onlyĚý.

Such “more” thinking is typical as well of much of the rest of the cast of characters now in key positions in the Trump administration. Take the CIA, for instance. Under its new director, Mike Pompeo (distinctly a “more” kind of guy and anĚýĚýof the first order), two key positions have reportedly been filled: a new chief of counterterrorism and a new head of Iran operations (recently identified as Michael D’Andrea, an agency hardliner with the nickname “the Dark Prince”). Here’s how Ěýrecently describedĚýtheir similar approaches to their jobs (my emphasis added): “Mr. D’Andrea’s new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal aĚýmore muscular approachĚýto covert operations under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said. The agency also recently named a new chief of counterterrorism, who has begun pushing forĚýgreater latitude to strike militants.”

In other words, more!

Rest assured of one thing, whatever Donald Trump accomplishes in the way of dismantling America’s version of soft power, “his” generals and intelligence operatives will handle the hard-power part of the equation just as “ably.”

The First American Laster?

If a Trump presidency achieves a record for the ages when it comes to the precipitous decline of the American global system, little as The Donald ever cares to share credit for anything, he will undoubtedly have to share it for such an achievement. It’s true that kings, emperors and autocrats, the top dogs of any moment, prefer to take all the credit for the “records” set in their time. When we look back, however, it’s likely that President Trump will be seen as having given a tottering system that necessary push. It will undoubtedly be clear enough by then that the US, seemingly at the height of any power’s power in 1991 when the Soviet Union disappeared, began heading for the exits soon thereafter, still enwreathed in self-congratulation and triumphalism.

Had this not been so, Donald Trump would never have won the 2016 election. It wasn’t he, after all, who gave the US heartland an increasingly Third-World feel. It wasn’t he who spent those trillions of dollars so disastrously on invasions and occupations, dead-end wars, drone strikes and special ops raids, reconstruction andĚýĚýin a never-ending war on terror that today looks more like a war for the spread of terror. It wasn’t he who created the growing inequality gap in this country or produced all those billionaires amid a population that increasingly felt left in the lurch. It wasn’t he who hiked college tuitions or increased the debt levels of the young or set roads and bridges to crumbling and created the conditions for Third World-style airports.

If both the American global and domestic systems hadn’t been rotting out before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, that “again” of his wouldn’t have worked. Thought of another way, when the US was truly at the height of its economic clout and power, American leaders felt no need to speak incessantly of how “indispensable” or “exceptional” the country was. It seemed too self-evident to mention. Someday, some historian may use those very words in the mouths of American presidents and other politicians (and theirĚý, for instance, that the US military was “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known”) as a set of increasingly defensive markers for measuring the decline of American power.

So here’s the question: When the Trump years (months?) come to an end, will the US be not the planet’s most exceptional land, but a pariah nation? Will that “again” still be the story of the year, the decade, the century? Will the last American Firster turn out to have been the first American Laster? Will it truly be one for the record books?

*[This article was originally published on .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ěý

The post America Last: Will Trump Set a Record for the History Books? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Do you remember Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? Was it the first time you were shocked into realizing that our planet is undergoing major climatic changes you might be responsible for? Were you frightened back then?

The truly scary thing is that it has been 10 years since the film thrust global warming onto the agenda, and yet every year since then has been consistently the warmest on record. Hunters in the Arctic are being killed on , starving trap scientists at their stations, London is and Texas is being battered by .

As world leaders meet at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is pushing for the ratification of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. With Britain, China and the US among those who have pledged to formally ratify their commitment to combat global warming, 55 nations need to come together to make it a .

Here is a look back at why this process has taken this long in one of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases: America.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 

The post Climate Change: Yep, Still Happening appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.