Iran has announced that it will begin to restart its program of enriching Uranium to 20%. The number is significant because it is higher than the typical 4% enrichment necessary for peaceful nuclear reactors (but still far below the necessary enrichment of 95% necessary to build a nuclear bomb). Additionally, Iran has seized a South Korean oil tanker, accusing it of releasing pollution into the Persian Gulf. Both of these actions have heightened tensions between Iran and the US.
But the treatment of the enrichment issue has been handled poorly by the US media. For example, The Washington Post ran a story with the headline “Iran begins enriching uranium to 20 percent in new breach of nuclear deal”. The nuclear deal is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which was signed in 2015 during the Obama Administration and included France, Great Britain, the US, China, Russia, and Germany. That deal included:
The JCPOA was carefully monitored, not only by the US, but also by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The consensus was that Iran had adhered to the terms of the agreement. President Trump, however, believed that the agreement was flawed because it did not include any terms over ballistic missile development nor over Iran’s support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah which continue to resist Israeli control over Palestine. The Arms Control Association was clear: “Despite Iran’s verified compliance with the deal, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, and subsequently re-imposed all U.S. sanctions on Iran lifted by the accord.”
We should be clear: the US was the first state to violate the JCPOA. Iran held off on chipping away at many of the conditions of the agreement for a full year, and increased those violations marginally only in 2019. The decision to enrich Uranium to 20% represents the first major violation of the agreement and represents the first major departure from the agreement by Iran. On the other hand, the US not only refused to lift the sanctions promised in the JCPOA but substantially increased sanctions and forced other states to the agreement to follow those sanctions. There is no question that the sanctions have seriously damaged the Iranian economy and Iran has indicated that it would return to the terms of the JCPOA “within an hour” if the US decides to return to it as well. We do not know what President-elect Biden intends to do about the JCPOA, but The Guardian reports that “So far Biden has said he wants at first to focus on the narrow issue of lifting sanctions, and the US rejoining the deal in return for Iran fully complying with its obligations to restrain its nuclear programme.”
Given President Trump’s hostility toward Iran, buttressed by the Israeli conviction that Iran represents an “existential threat”, many are concerned that he might think that the US has only two weeks to assure the complete collapse of the agreement and, perhaps, to eliminate the threat perceived by Israel. Such actions would likely include a military strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran. I worry that such a strike would seem attractive to Mr. Trump as a way of distracting the US population from his other problems. The release of the tapes of Mr. Trump’s telephone conversation with Georgia’s Secretary of State only amplifies this fear. I have little doubts that Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu both believe that a military strike on Iran would completely ruin the possibility of a revived JCPOA.
There has been a lot of military moves recently. The US has sent B-52 bombers to the Middle East as a signal to Iran. The Hill reports:
“The U.S. military flew two B-52H bombers over the Persian Gulf on Wednesday in an effort to deter Iran amid ongoing tensions, according to U.S. Central Command.
“The two Air Force ‘Stratofortresses’ flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to deliver ‘a clear deterrent message to anyone who intends to do harm to Americans or American interests,’ the command said in a statement.
“The deployment marks the third such mission into the region in the last 45 days”
“‘The United States continues to deploy combat-ready capabilities into the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility to deter any potential adversary, and make clear that we are ready and able to respond to any aggression directed at Americans or our interests,’ Centcom head Gen. Frank McKenzie, said in the statement. ‘We do not seek conflict, but no one should underestimate our ability to defend our forces or to act decisively in response to any attack.'”
There has also been some interesting developments concerning the USS Nimitz, an aircraft carrier that has been patrolling the Persian Gulf since last November. Last Friday, Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller announced that the Nimitz would return to its home base in Washington state. The move was described as a de-escalatory move. The New York Times reported: “Officials said on Friday that Mr. Miller ordered the redeployment of the Nimitz in part as a ‘de-escalatory’ signal to Tehran to avoid stumbling into a crisis at the end of Mr. Trump’s administration that would land in Mr. Biden’s lap as he took office.” But CNN reports that Mr. Trump ordered that the decision be reversed.
None of the explanations about the Nimitz make sense. Why de-escalate when the US is also sending B-52s to the Middle East? More likely is the fear that, if a war occurred, the Nimitz would be highly vulnerable in the constricted space of the Persian Gulf. The Iranian missile attack on the Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq after the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani last January confirmed that Iranian missiles are formidable. They were not detected before they struck and they were remarkably precise. Parts of the base were destroyed, but no US troops were killed and it seems as if the Iranians carefully calibrated the attack in order to reduce the chances of retaliation. If the Iranian missile capabilities are so sophisticated, then the Nimitz might have been highly vulnerable.
There is, however, a more insidious explanation. Perhaps the Nimitz was ordered to stay in the Persian Gulf in order to be an attractive target for the Iranian. An attack on the Nimitz would be considered an act of war, justifying a massive retaliatory strike. Obviously I have no idea why the decision was made and I have learned that is a mistake to overthink any of Mr. Trump’s decisions. But all these military moves are deeply troubling. Mr. Trump has only two weeks to make good on his promise to scuttle the JCPOA permanently and I worry that given the deeply unsettling situation in the US, that anything is possible.
Over the last ten years, researchers at the University of Vermont have measured key words in all Twitter users using the English language. Their primary concern has been to measure words that reflect “happiness” (like “love”) and distress (like “suicide”). Their results for 2020 are represented in the graph below. Not surprisingly, 2020 has not been a “happy” year, yielding results below the average of 2015-1019. If one wishes to check against previous years, one should check the “hedonometer” (such a ghastly name) at the University of Vermont site. Interestingly, one can make comparisons with other countries (France was less happy than Americans and South Koreans were cheerier).
In September 2007, 14 Iraqi citizens were killed and 17 were injured in Nisour Square in Baghdad. Among the dead was a nine year old boy, Ali Kinani. They were killed by four military contractors employed by a security firm called Blackwater at the time (it was renamed as Xe Services in 2009 and known as Academi after it was purchased by private investors in 2911). In 2007 Blackwater was run by Erik Prince, the brother of the current US Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.
“In October 2014, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard were found guilty of 13 charges of voluntary manslaughter and 17 charges of attempted manslaughter, while Nicholas Slatten, the team’s sniper who was the first to open fire, was convicted on a separate charge of first-degree murder.
“Slatten was sentenced to life; Slough, Liberty and Heard got 30 years each.
“’In killing and maiming unarmed civilians, these defendants acted unreasonably and without justification,’ the US attorney’s office said in a statement. ‘In combination, the sheer amount of unnecessary human loss and suffering attributable to the defendants’ criminal conduct on September 16, 2007, is staggering.’
“The massacre left 14 civilians dead and at least 17 wounded. ‘None of the victims was an insurgent, or posed any threat to the Raven 23 convoy,’ the government said, in a sentencing memorandum filed to the court on 8 April.
In international law, states have the obligation to try suspected war criminals. If states fail to prosecute, international law allows international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court or the Hague Tribunals, to prosecute. The failure of a state to uphold the laws of war is considered a serious abdication of one of the most important attributes of sovereignty–the protection of civilians from war crimes. The US conviction of the four mercenaries was a clear manifestation of this responsibility.
US President Trump has pardoned these mercenaries and there is a serious question whether that act violates treaties that the US has signed, including the Geneva Conventions. The United Nations has a working Group on the use of mercenaries within its Human Rights Council. That group believes that Trump’s pardons are a violation of US legal obligations and issued the following statement:
“‘Pardoning the Blackwater contractors is an affront to justice and to the victims of the Nisour Square massacre and their families,’ said Jelena Aparac, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries.
“’The Geneva Conventions oblige States to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes, even when they act as private security contractors. These pardons violate US obligations under international law and more broadly undermine humanitarian law and human rights at a global level.
“’Ensuring accountability for such crimes is fundamental to humanity and to the community of nations,’ she said. ‘Pardons, amnesties, or any other forms of exculpation for war crimes open doors to future abuses when States contract private military and security companies for inherent state functions.’
“The Working Group is extremely concerned that by permitting private security contractors to operate with impunity in armed conflicts, States will be encouraged to circumvent their obligations under humanitarian law by increasingly outsourcing core military operations to the private sector.”
Chris Walker writes in Truthout and raises an important question: do the pardons violate the Geneva Conventions and are therefore not legally legitimate? The Constitution gives the US President the right to issue pardons and places no restrictions on that right.
“Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
But the US Constitution also considers treaties to be the “supreme law of the land”. Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution reads: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The people who wrote the US Constitution never anticipated a time when international treaties would deal with war crimes but it seems to me that Trump’s pardons are a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. Thus, a case could be made that the pardons of the war criminals is not legitimate or legal. It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this case although I have no doubt that it would find some way to rule that the Geneva Convention should not be considered “supreme law” in this case.
Ali Kinani, youngest victim of the Nisour Massacre
David Hope and Julian Limberg of the London School of Economics have published a paper entitled “The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich“. The study examines the ideology of “Trickle-down” economics which is used to justify reducing the tax burden on capital-rich individuals because such actions stimulate economic growth which ultimately benefit even the poorer members of society. The study examined data from 18 OECD democracies over 5 decades (1965-2015).
“Our results show that, for both matching methods, major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform (� + 1 to � + 5). The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national income of 0.8 percentage points. The results also show that economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich. The estimated effects for these variables are statistically indistinguishable from zero, and this finding holds in both the short and medium run.
“Our findings align closely with the existing correlational evidence showing that tax cuts for the rich are associated with rising top income shares (Atkinson and Leigh, 2013; Huber et al., 2019; Piketty et al., 2014; Roine et al., 2009; Volscho and Kelly, 2012). We make an important contribution to this literature, however, as our empirical strategy allows for the estimation of causal effects. This is particularly pertinent in this case, as there is a large political science literature on the power of rich voters and organised business interests to shape public policies (incl. tax policies) in their favour (Bartels, 2009; Emmenegger and Marx, 2019; Gilens, 2005; Hacker and Pierson, 2010; Svallfors, 2016), which suggests reverse causality could be a major issue in empirical studies lacking a clear identification strategy.
The study fits comfortably with other recent studies on income and wealth inequality in rich countries by scholars such as Thomas Piketty. For much of the 20th Century, the subjects of income and wealth inequality were largely ignored by most economists who concentrated more on the issue of bolstering economic growth. The assumption that a “rising tide lifts all boats” was a mantra of market capitalism. That assumption looks increasingly simplistic and wrong.
This post will be my last for two weeks. I am resolved to enjoy the holidays and to spend time with my family without paying attention to world affairs (unless there is some truly dramatic event). I hope that everyone has a peaceful and joyous period of time. I will be posting again on 29 December 2020.
The abolition of the Electoral College is long overdue in the United States. It is an archaic form of republicanism that now favors certain constituencies and diminishes that electoral power of many who deserve a voice in US politics. It truly distorts the idea of “one person, one vote”. To get an idea of how whacked out the Electoral College is, check out the graphic below.
As we bid good riddance to 2020, the video below of a poor woman in Ukraine enduring the futility of trying to walk on icy pavement. There have been many times this year that I have felt I was in the same position.
WATCH NOW: Ukraine's capital is covered in ice. And this woman just cannot stop falling on it. pic.twitter.com/iIXUrQrdp5
Democratic New Jersey Representative Bill Pascrell has floated an interesting idea. He proposes that members of the House of Representatives who “signed onto an amicus brief supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s bogus Supreme Court case seeking to toss hundreds of thousands of votes in four swing states should be denied their seats in Congress”. The 3rd section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is the basis for this proposal. That section, adopted after the Civil War, reads:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. “
I doubt that simply signing a brief constitutes a breach of the 14th Amendment because the brief simply invokes a legitimate process and does not therefore qualify as “insurrection or rebellion”. But I think that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, should introduce a resolution to the House after the Electoral College votes to elect Joe Biden as President that reads something like this: “This House pledges to support Joseph Biden as the legitimate President of the United States”. Then she should deny seating any Representative who refuses to vote in favor of the resolution. Republican Representatives would then have choice: accept the results of the election or lose their seat. Those who vote to accept President Biden would have to endure the wrath of Mr. Trump’s constituencies, a welcome step to separate those who lust for power over the Constitution from those who accept the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.
I am not a lawyer so I have no idea whether this makes any sense at all. But I have grown completely frustrated by the lack of consequences for actions that have no basis in fact. A refusal to accept the votes of the Electoral College subverts the Constitution. And such actions deserve to have consequences.
The International Monetary Fund has published a provocative paper entitled “A Vicious Cycle: How Pandemics Lead to Economic Despair and Social Unrest“. The paper explores how pandemics in the past have aggravated pre-existing economic inequalities and led to increased civil unrest. I was initially quite skeptical of the possibility of robust findings given the amorphousness of the categories being tested. The number of actual pandemics in the past are few and some are not well documented; economic inequality is difficult to measure; and civil unrest always has myriad causes.
But the authors of the paper readily confessed the difficulties of making the argument and tried to carefully define their variables in ways that could be carefully measured. They write:
“Social unrest has become more widespread and more frequent over the past decade. Social unrest, measured by the civil disorder score from International Country Risk Guide (ICRG), increased by about 10 percent (or one standard deviation) since 2009 (Figure 1).2 The aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), with the slow recovery and rising inequality, left tens of millions of people behind with fading hope of climbing up the social ladder. Many took their frustration to the street, contributing to an elevated level of citizen activism 10 years after the crisis. In 2019, popular protests erupted in France and Greece in Europe, Hong Kong and India in Asia, Chile, Colombia and Bolivia in Latin America to Iran and Iraq in the Middle East. Though triggered by different events, ranging from rising transport costs to higher fuel prices, and specific demands vary by country, a common theme underlying the social discontent is reported to be stagnating living standards and inequality
“The COVID-19 pandemic is worsening existing socio-economic inequalities. The virus pushed economies into a Great Lockdown, which triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression (IMF, 2020a; Deb et al. 2020). The lockdown measures have taken a huge toll on the labor market, with surging unemployment and plunging labor force participation. Job losses are concentrated in industries with lower wages and among women and youth, indicating early signs of worsening distributional outcomes. At the same time, social unrest has decreased in recent months as mobility has declined. The recent widespread protests in the United States and across the world against police brutality and systemic racism, and in Lebanon are notable exceptions (IMF 2020d).”
The study focuses on five recent pandemics: SARS in 2003, H1N1 in 2009, MERS in 2012, Ebola in 2014, and Zika in 2016. The conclusions of the study are stark:
“The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the global economy and is likely to increase inequality in the years to come. We established that past pandemics, even though much smaller in scale than COVID-19, have significantly contributed to social unrest through their impact on economic growth and inequality. Specifically, we provide evidence that pandemics tend to depress economic growth and increase inequality, and both lower growth and greater inequality are important drivers of social unrest. Furthermore, social unrest, in turn, is associated with output loss and with higher inequality, suggesting a vicious cycle. Our results would imply a heightened risk of social unrest post COVID-19 unless swift and bold policies are implemented to protect the most vulnerable group in the society.
“Policymakers need to pay special attention to preventing scarring effects on the livelihoods of the least advantaged in society. Absent strenuous and targeted attempts, we are again likely to see an increase in inequality, which was already “one of the most complex and vexing challenges in the global economy” (Georgieva 2020). Unemployment benefits and improved health benefits, such as sick leaves, are useful for all in dealing with the effects of the pandemic but particularly so for the poorer segments of society who lack a stock of savings and are thus living hand-to-mouth (Furceri, Loungani, and Ostry, 2020). Where informality is pervasive, cash transfers may be the best response. These extraordinary circumstances also provide an opportunity to address longstanding inequalities—in access to health and basic services, finance, and the digital economy—and to enhance social protection for informal workers (Dabla-Norris and Rhee, 2020).”
The US has certainly experienced greater civil unrest in 2020 and it is very difficult for me to parse out what the situation might have been in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic. But it will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out in the coming months. I also believe firmly that the redistributive measures currently being pursued by some in Congress should be implemented even in the absence of the threat of violence. We should, however, keep a keen eye on what happens throughout 2021.
The announcement by President-elect Biden that he will appoint retired Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III to be the next Secretary of Defense has raised concerns about whether the military will have a inordinate voice in American foreign policy. The tradition in the US is to have the military run by a civilian as explained by Amber Philips in The Washington Post:
“Does being cozy with the military, because you recently served in it, make someone unfit to lead the military?
“There’s a law that says the leader of the Defense Department needs to have at least seven years’ distance between themselves and military service. The law, originally passed in 1947 and originally with a requirement that a candidate be retired from military service for a minimum of 10 years, is derived from the concept that the military should serve civilians, not the other way around. (Congress changed the law in 2007 to a seven-year minimum.)
“The roots of this desire to have a civilian head the military run deep. At the outset of the nation, Congress was really worried about how its military could be seized by malign actors who could overthrow their democratic experiment. Founders took pains to put lots of checks and balances on the military, such as congressional reconsideration of defense funding every two years. The big protection was having a civilian control the military.
“’This has been a recurring theme in U.S. history, separation of military and civilian authority,’ said Mark Cancian, a retired colonel and military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘It’s written into the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. That was one of the complaints we had about the British.’”
Austin will require a waiver from Congress because he has been retired less than the required number of minimum years. He is reputed to be close to President-elect Biden, but has a less than distinguished record of interactions with the Congress over his leadership in the Middle East during the fight against ISIS in Syria. And many question whether he is the right person for the job by those who believe that the major challenges to American foreign policy will be in the Indo-Pacific, specifically with respect to growing Chinese military power.
“In his more than 40 years in the United States Army, Austin met every challenge with extraordinary skill and profound personal decency. He is a true and tested soldier and leader. I’ve spent countless hours with him, in the field and in the White House Situation Room. I’ve sought his advice, seen his command, and admired his calm and his character. He is the definition of a patriot. He rose through the Army’s ranks during his distinguished and trailblazing career. He was the 200th person ever to attain the rank of an Army four-star general, but only the sixth African American. He built a career grounded in service to this country and challenged the institution that he loves to grow more inclusive and more diverse at every step.
“He was the first African American general officer to lead an Army corps in combat and the first African American to command an entire theater of war; if confirmed, he will be the first African American to helm the Defense Department—another milestone in a barrier-breaking career dedicated to keeping the American people secure.”
Austin appears to be a second choice for Biden. The initial reports suggested that Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration, was Biden’s first choice. I had reservations about Flournoy who seemed to be more hawkish than Biden himself. For example, in July 2020 Flournoy co-authored an essay entitled “Sharpening the U.S. Military’s Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration” which gave me pause:
“As a result, the United States can no longer assume that it will have air, space, or maritime superiority early in a conflict, or the freedom of action that this domain superiority allows. The U.S. military will need to fight to gain advantage—and then to keep it—in the face of continuous PLA efforts to disrupt and degrade U.S. battle management networks, while accelerating its own decision making cycle by leveraging artificial intelligence. China’s theory of victory increasingly relies on the notion of “system destruction warfare”: crippling an adversary’s networks at the outset of conflict by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare, counter-space, and cyber capabilities to disrupt critical C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) networks, thwart U.S. power projection, and undermine American resolve.”
Flournoy’s emphasis on Great Power competition with China worries me because it reflects the mantra of many who wish to see military spending rise even more than it has during the Trump Administration. There are many more policies toward China that do not emphasize the need to compete militarily.
But it is difficult for me to pin down Biden’s foreign policy preferences. In earlier years Biden was quite hawkish–his support for the Iraq war in 2003 was deeply troubling to me. Biden seems to now be more reticent about the use of the US military, and Austin is more consistent with that perspective. Many seem to believe that a civilian would fill that role, but I no longer believe that to be true. Robert McNamara in the Kennedy/Johnson Administrations and Donald Rumsfeld in the George W. Bush Administration were very hawkish and were enthusiastic supporters of horribly ill-advised American adventures in Vietnam and Iraq.
Austin strikes me as someone who would be more like Colin Powell who was reluctant to put troops in danger unless they were supported to the fullest extent before the war against Iraq in 1991 started. I personally think that someone who has served in the Army (as opposed to the Navy or the Air Force) considers the risk to ground troops very seriously. President Truman took the matter of combat deaths seriously because of his experience in World War I: “Truman was a war hero. The US suffered 53,402 combat deaths in World War I, many of them from the 129th Field Artillery. Under Truman’s command, Battery D had no combat deaths.”
Additionally, the preference for civilian control ignores what I consider to be a more serious threat to American democracy: the inordinate influence of corporations on military spending, perhaps best exemplified by the misbegotten F-35 fighter plane. It is unlikely that Congress would approve of an academic or a peace activist for the post and support for military spending is often used as a surrogate for the “toughness” necessary for credibility in military circles.
In sum, there are some disadvantages to having Austin as Secretary of Defense but the likely alternatives to Austin worry me. It is far better to go with someone who has the confidence of the new President and does not need to prove their spurs to an audience that sees nothing but profit in military spending.
NASA has announced that 2019 was the second warmest year on record, second only to 2016. But it was only second by a hair. According to CNN: “The only year in recorded history the planet has experienced that was hotter was 2016, and only by a hair — just 0.04 degrees Celsius.” The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provides the background to this warming:
“Concentrations of the major greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, and N2O, continued to increase in 2019 and 2020.
“Despite developing La Niña conditions, global mean temperature in 2020 is on course to be one of the three warmest on record. The past six years, including 2020, are likely to be the six warmest years on record.
“Sea level has increased throughout the altimeter record, but recently sea level has risen at a higher rate due partly to increased melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Global mean sea level in 2020 was similar to that in 2019 and both are consistent with the long-term trend. A small drop in global sea level in the latter part of 2020 is likely associated with developing La Niña conditions, similar to the temporary drops associated with previous La Niña events.
“Over 80% of the ocean area experienced at least one marine heatwave in 2020 to date. More of the ocean experienced marine heat waves classified as ‘strong’ (43%) than ‘moderate’ (28%).”
The warming process was most acute in Siberia (more that 5 degrees C than normal), southwestern US, northern and western parts of South America, and parts of China. The emission of greenhouse gases contributing to the warming was notable:
“In 2019, greenhouse gas concentrations reached new highs (Figure 3), with globally averaged mole fractions of carbon dioxide (CO2) at 410.5±0.2 parts per million (ppm), methane (CH4) at 1877±2 parts per billion (ppb) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at 332.0±0.1 ppb. These values constitute, respectively, 148%, 260% and 123% of pre-industrial (before 1750) levels. The increase in CO2 from 2018 to 2019 (2.6 ppm) was larger than both the increase from 2017 to 2018 (2.3 ppm) and the average over the last decade (2.37 ppm per year). For CH4, the increase from 2018 to 2019 was slightly lower than from 2017 to 2018 but still higher than the average over the last decade. For N2O, the increase from 2018 to 2019 was also lower than that observed from 2017 to 2018 and practically equal to the average growth rate over the past 10 years.”
The data led a large number of climate scientists to issue a stark warning which was published in The Guardian:
“As scientists and scholars from around the world, we call on policymakers to engage with the risk of disruption and even collapse of societies. After five years failing to reduce emissions in line with the Paris climate accord, we must now face the consequences. While bold and fair efforts to cut emissions and naturally drawdown carbon are essential, researchers in many areas consider societal collapse a credible scenario this century. Different views exist on the location, extent, timing, permanence and cause of disruptions, but the way modern societies exploit people and nature is a common concern.
“Only if policymakers begin to discuss this threat of societal collapse might we begin to reduce its likelihood, speed, severity, harm to the most vulnerable – and to nature….
“We have experienced how emotionally challenging it is to recognise the damage being done, along with the growing threat to our own way of life. We also know the great sense of fellowship that can arise. It is time to have these difficult conversations, so we can reduce our complicity in the harm, and make the best of a turbulent future.”
Such warnings run the risk of inducing a sense of fatalism about climate change. But the world has not moved very far in addressing this crisis over the last five years, despite the promise of the Paris Accords. US President-elect Biden has spoken often about the need to address climate change, and the appointment of former Senator John Kerry as the special presidential envoy for climate suggests that there may be support for what has been termed the “Great Reset”. The Great Reset initiative tries to integrate the economic, political, and health-related aspects of climate change and it is a profoundly ambitious perspective on the crisis. The obstacles to effective change, largely stemming from the financially powerful oil and gas industries, still remain, however. Nothing less than extreme public pressure will overcome the powerful resistance to change.
US President Trump has tweeted that his personal lawyer, Rudy Guiliani, has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. While I despise everything that Guiliani has done to corrupt the US political system, I genuinely wish him a full recovery from the disease. But I also hope that his experience with the virus will remind him that we are all vulnerable and that the only human reaction is to be compassionate and caring.
He does, however, still need to be reminded that he has become a total jerk in disseminating foolish and evil lies about the 2020 national election. I cannot resist.
World Politics News 