The Pew Research Center has conducted a poll in several countries on how citizens rate their government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The range of results is huge, but not especially surprising. The Center reports:
“Across the 14 countries surveyed, a median of 73% say that their own country has done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. Just 27% believe their country has handled it poorly. However, there is some variation by country on this assessment.
“About seven-in-ten or more give their nation’s coronavirus response a positive review in Denmark, Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, Italy and Sweden. And more than half in Belgium, France, Japan and Spain share this sentiment.
“In two countries – the United Kingdom and the United States – people are divided in their beliefs when it comes to rating their government’s performance responding to the coronavirus. These two nations also have high levels of political polarization on views of the government’s handling of this crisis. In the U.S., 76% of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party say the government has done a good job, while just a quarter of Democrats and Democratic leaners agree, a 51 percentage point difference. A majority of right-leaning Britons (55%) give a positive rating to their country’s handling of the pandemic, led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government, but just 26% on the left hold the same opinion.”
Another finding of the poll is quite striking: there is a strong correlation between those who think their government has done a good job in addressing the pandemic and their assessment of the economy in their country:
“Economies around the world have contracted due to the unprecedented nature of the coronavirus outbreak, and the U.S. Congressional Research Service reports that the global economy could grow between 3% and 6% less in 2020 compared with previous projections. These economic effects also relate to how people assess their own nation’s handling of the pandemic. Across all 14 nations included in the survey, those who think their current national economic situation is good are also more likely than those who believe the economy is bad to say their country has done a good job of dealing with the coronavirus outbreak.
“This divergence is especially pronounced in the United States. Among those with a more optimistic view of the economy, 78% report that they approve of the way the U.S. government has dealt with the virus. But those who think the American economy is currently in poor shape are less than half as likely to give the government response a positive rating.”
One surprising result of the poll is that younger Americans tend to think that there would have been fewer coronavirus deaths if the US had cooperated with other countries and international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
“Americans on the whole say that more cooperation could have limited the number of coronavirus cases. A majority (58%) of U.S. adults say that if the U.S. had cooperated with more countries, the number of American coronavirus cases would have been lower.
“Much as younger people globally tend to have more favorable opinions of the UN and younger Americans give higher approval ratings to the WHO for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak, those ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 50 and older to say that more cooperation would have reduced the number of coronavirus cases in their country.”
The views of people in the European Union (EU) on the coronavirus also reflects the different opinions that many in Europe have of the Union itself. It seems as if it is impossible to view the pandemic from a non-political point of view. That conclusion is dispiriting.
Tensions between the US and China have ratcheted up because the US sent a U-2 surveillance plane into an area China designated as a “no-fly” zone because it was conducting live-fire military exercises in the region. The US insists that its flights were perfectly legal because they were conducted in strict accordance with international law. The surveillance flight might have been legal, but sending an aircraft into a live-fire zone is problematic. In response, the Chinese launched two missiles into an area of the South China Sea. According to The South China Morning Post:
“One of the missiles, a DF-26B, was launched from the northwestern province of Qinghai, while the other, a DF-21D, lifted off from Zhejiang province in the east.
“Both were fired into an area between Hainan province and the Paracel Islands, the source said.
“The landing areas were within a zone that Hainan maritime safety authorities said on Friday would be off limits because of military exercises from Monday to Saturday.
“The DF-26 dual-capable missile is a type of weapon banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty treaty signed by the US and Soviet Union towards the end of the Cold War. When the US withdrew from the treaty last year, it cited China’s deployment of such weapons as justification.
“The DF-26 has a range of 4,000km (2,485 miles) and can be used in nuclear or conventional strikes against ground and naval targets.
“The DF-21 has a range of around 1,800km, with state media describing the most advanced in the series, the DF-21D, as the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile.”
The missiles were clearly intended to send a message to the US which has routinely sent its naval vessels into the South China Sea to assert freedom of navigation rights. The aircraft carrier is the most dramatic example of what military analysts call “projective power”–the ability to exert military force independently of naval bases and contiguous territory. But there are many questions about the viability of aircraft carriers as missile technology continues to improve.
But the increased tension is also based upon a new policy articulated by US Secretary of State Pompeo on US policy toward the South China Sea. The new policy rejects China’s claims in the sea, a dramatic shift from its previous position that those claims have to be negotiated between China and the other states with maritime claims.
“The PRC has no legal grounds to unilaterally impose its will on the region. Beijing has offered no coherent legal basis for its “Nine-Dashed Line” claim in the South China Sea since formally announcing it in 2009. In a unanimous decision on July 12, 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention – to which the PRC is a state party – rejected the PRC’s maritime claims as having no basis in international law. The Tribunal sided squarely with the Philippines, which brought the arbitration case, on almost all claims.
“As the United States has previously stated, and as specifically provided in the Convention, the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both parties. Today we are aligning the U.S. position on the PRC’s maritime claims in the SCS with the Tribunal’s decision. Specifically:
“The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim – including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands – vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippines’ EEZ or on its continental shelf. Beijing’s harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunal’s legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features.
“As Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12-nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands (without prejudice to other states’ sovereignty claims over such islands). As such, the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), waters in Brunei’s EEZ, and Natuna Besar (off Indonesia). Any PRC action to harass other states’ fishing or hydrocarbon development in these waters – or to carry out such activities unilaterally – is unlawful.
“The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the “southernmost territory of China.” International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.
“The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire. America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law. We stand with the international community in defense of freedom of the seas and respect for sovereignty and reject any push to impose “might makes right” in the South China Sea or the wider region.
By branding China’s activities in the South China Sea as “illegal” the US effectively vitiates negotiated settlements, a challenge that China cannot ignore.
The dispute simply adds more tension to an already rattled relationship. The current disputes between the two states includes trade, Taiwan, the status of Hong Kong, the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang Province, and the controversy over the origins of the COVID-19 virus. Given the context, military actions by either side are incredibly dangerous.
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is slated to give a speech to the Republican National Convention endorsing the re-election of US President Trump. This type of partisan political activity is highly unusual for any State Department official, let alone the most prominent US diplomat. The practice of not participating in political activity is based upon pretty straightforward logic: the State Department is supposed to speak for all Americans when interacting with other states. But the practice is also official policy of the State Department, as evidenced by a memo approved by Pompeo himself in December of 2019:
“This memorandum outlines the current restrictions on political activities that apply to all presidential and political appointees, including Foreign Service and Civil Service career employees serving in such positions. This guidance reflects the provisions of the Hatch Act (the federal statute governing political activities by federal employees), government-wide regulations implementing that Act, and State Department policies. The Department has a long-standing policy of limiting participation in partisan campaigns by its political appointees in recognition of the need for the U.S. Government to speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. The combination of Department policy and Hatch Act requirements effectively bars you from engaging in partisan political activities while on duty, and, in many circumstances, even when you are off duty.”
Pompeo will be using Israel as a campaign prop in order to flatter Christian evangelicals who regard Israel’s presence in the city of Jerusalem as a prerequisite to the second coming of Christ. The Trump Administration has made many concessions to Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians, most notably moving the US Embassy from the city of Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the eastern part of which the Palestinians have designated as the capital of their hoped-for state. Mimi Kirk explains this position in terms of “Christian Zionism”:
“Trump’s embassy move was controversial—but the two speakers who opened and closed the ceremony were equally controversial. Two evangelical Christian megachurch pastors from Texas who advise Trump, Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, earnestly prayed and thanked God for making the state of Israel possible and Trump for having the courage to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people.
“’Father, we are…grateful as we think about [the founding of the state of Israel in 1948], when you fulfilled the prophecies of the prophets from thousands of years ago and regathered your people in this promised land,’ intoned Jeffress, while Hagee identified Jerusalem as the city ‘where Messiah will come and establish a kingdom that will never end.’
“As Christian Zionists—Hagee is the founder of the main US Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and Jeffress regularly preaches the ideology on Fox news—the two men’s remarks reflect their belief that the modern state of Israel is the result of biblical prophecy. This belief centers around the idea that 4,000 years ago God promised the land to the Jews, who will rule it until Jesus’ return to Jerusalem and the rapture. Not all will benefit from this end of times scenario: While Christians will be saved and ‘live forever with Christ in a new heaven and earth,’ those adhering to other religions who do not convert to Christianity will be sent to hell.”
Pompeo’s speech is an affront to all Americans who do not wish the world to think that the US supports Israel without reservation. It is an affront to all Americans who do not want the world to think that all Americans support Trump or that supporting Trump is a precondition for acceptance in US politics.
“And we moved the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. That’s for the Evangelicals. You know, it’s amazing with that: the Evangelicals are more excited by that than Jewish people.” pic.twitter.com/nO8aIzuZJa
The Guardian is reporting the conclusions of new research which has calculated the loss of ice on the planet over the last 30 years: “A total of 28 trillion tonnes of ice have disappeared from the surface of the Earth since 1994.” The researchers looked at satellite images of the poles and glacier ice to reach that conclusion. The implications of this process, which the researchers attribute to global warming caused by human activity, are potentially devastating to large numbers of people:
“The scientists – based at Leeds and Edinburgh universities and University College London – describe the level of ice loss as “staggering” and warn that their analysis indicates that sea level rises, triggered by melting glaciers and ice sheets, could reach a metre by the end of the century.
“’To put that in context, every centimetre of sea level rise means about a million people will be displaced from their low-lying homelands,’ said Professor Andy Shepherd, director of Leeds University’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling.”
According to the researchers: “The level of ice loss revealed by the group matches the worst-case-scenario predictions outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” We are long past the time to think that climate change is sometime in the future. The wildfires in California and Colorado are clearly related to warming and dry temperatures. Texas and Louisiana are bracing for potential hurricanes Marco and Laura on Tuesday and Wednesday, hurricanes fueled by water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico close to 90F. Unfortunately, many of the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, such as the US, are unwilling to take any steps to avoid a desperate situation by mid-century.
The Institute for Policy Studies has published a study on how wealth has become increasingly more concentrated in the US since the advent of the pandemic. The data are actually astonishing:
“For the first time in U.S. history, the top twelve U.S. billionaires surpassed a combined wealth of $1 trillion. On Thursday August 13, these 12 held a combined $1.015 trillion.
“This is a disturbing milestone in the U.S. history of concentrated wealth and power. This is simply too much economic and political power in the hands of twelve people. From the point of view of a democratic self-governing society, this represents an Oligarchic Twelve or a Despotic Dozen….
“The Oligarchic Dozen are Jeff Bezos ($189.4b), Bill Gates ($114b), Mark Zuckerberg ($95.5b), Warren Buffett ($80b), Elon Musk ($73b), Steve Ballmer ($71b), Larry Ellison ($70.9b), Larry Page ($67.4b), Sergey Brin ($65.6b), Alice Walton ($62.5b), Jim Walton ($62.3b), and Rob Walton ($62b).
“Since March 18, the beginning of the pandemic, this Oligarchic Dozen have seen their combined wealth increase $283 billion, an increase of almost 40 percent.”
I will confess that I was an active participant in this trend. I use Facebook (Zuckerberg), Amazon (Bezos), Windows (Ballmer and Gates), Google (Brin and Page), and probably Oracle someplace on my computer (Larry Ellison). I do not, however, own a Tesla (Musk) and will never set foot inside a Walmart (the Waltons). These levels are all calculated primarily in terms of the values of the stocks these individuals hold.
“The Federal Reserve was pumping more than $1 trillion into the markets to stave off a financial meltdown, and besides, with bond yields at record lows, investors didn’t really have any palatable alternatives to stocks as places to put their money. Still, it was jarring, even macabre, to watch the market soar while tens of thousands of Americans were dying of Covid-19 and millions were losing their jobs as a consequence of the nation’s economic shutdown.”
“While there are rational explanations for the normal-level of disconnect between equity returns and economic performance, the current historically wide gap suggests the presence of significant distortions (unparalleled levels of monetary and fiscal stimulus) as well as heightened levels of uncertainty. A few not-so-far-fetched developments may trigger a sudden change in market sentiments: Overly-enthusiastic predictions regarding the future role of technology in our personal and work lives may turn out to be overblown, or the pace of economic recovery may not be in accord with stock market expectations, or a delay in vaccine development may occur. Entry of novice traders, an unstable political climate and upcoming U.S. elections pose additional risks.
“All in all, it would be wise to be prepared for a sudden and sharp course correction in equity markets as the disconnect between the equity market and the real economy reaches historic proportions.”
In many respects, the fact that the stock market bubble will eventually come crashing down is beside the point. The more important issue is whether a society that allows such a wide divide to exist between the rich and poor can ever achieve justice. Ultimately the chasm between rich and poor will corrode and eviscerate the pretense that “all men are created equal”.
Forbes notes that “A group of 73 former U.S. National Security officials who served under GOP administrations, including former CIA and FBI chiefs, endorsed Democratic nominee Joe Biden in a joint statement on Thursday, joining the growing number of prominent Republicans to depart from their party for the 2020 election.” The letter is a devastating critique of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy as well as a condemnation of Mr. Trump’s governing style. It reads, in part:
“Through his actions and his rhetoric, Trump has demonstrated that he lacks the character and competence to lead this nation and has engaged in corrupt behavior that renders him unfit to serve as President.
“For the following reasons, we have concluded that Donald Trump has failed our country and that Vice President Joe Biden should be elected the next President of the United States.”
I was actually quite surprised at the list of signatories which includes some unapologetic hawks who supported the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars. The letter is careful to note that many of the signatories do not necessarily support Mr. Biden’s presumed foreign policy and that the letter is not simply a repudiation of any specific policies.
I do not harbor any illusions that the letter will have any significant impact on Mr. Trump, but it is a remarkable breach of traditional foreign policy protocol. Foreign policy wonks typically avoid partisan politics to assure that they can never be accused of working on behalf of an enemy. I am nonetheless certain that foreign diplomats will take the letter very seriously and the letter seriously erodes the credibility of Mr. Trump and all of his foreign policy advisers.
Turkey has been very assertive in the politics of the Middle East and the Mediterranean over the last few years. Its role in the Syrian civil war was decisive in removing US troops from Syria, much to the detriment of the interests of Kurds and civilians in the conflict. It has also been active in the Libyan civil war, squaring off against Russian interests in the country and supporting the Government of National Accord. Less noticed has been Turkey’s increasingly assertive claims on oil and gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean, leading to tensions with Greece and Cyprus. Deutsche Welle explains the controversy:
“The quarrel has to do with Turkish claims to maritime territories in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. For decades, Ankara has been of the opinion that the many Greek islands off Turkey’s Aegean coast should be entitled only to a much reduced Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), if any. An EEZ is a sea zone in which a sovereign state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources. EEZs are prescribed according to the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982…
Turkey has made an agreement with Libya which is claims gives it rights to the south of Crete. According to Foreign Policy:
“In a bid to break out of its regional isolation, in November 2019 Turkey signed its own maritime demarcation agreement with the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) in war-torn Libya. The deal was an attempt to gain greater legal standing to challenge the maritime borders Greece had established with Cyprus and Egypt, upon which their eastern Mediterranean natural gas development plans depend. The Ankara-Tripoli maritime boundary agreement was accompanied by a military cooperation pact providing the GNA a security guarantee against the efforts of General Khalifa Haftar’s forces, backed by France and Egypt, to topple the Tripoli-based government. The GNA formally activated its military pact with Ankara in December, linking the already tense maritime stand-off in the Eastern Mediterranean to the Libyan civil war.”
The claims to the southwest of Cyprus are also controversial. Turkey invaded the northeast part of the island in 1974 in response to a Greek-backed military coup on the island and its continued occupation of the region has been a thorn in Turkish-European Union relations (Cyprus is a member of the European Union). These maritime claims are easily resolvable through adherence to the UN Conference on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), but it is clear that Turkey at this time has no intention of paying any attention to international law.
Turkey has few oil and gas reserves on its own, so it is eager to find what it regards as its own reserves. But the Turkish-Libyan agreements are reminiscent of the old Ottoman Empire in the 16th century, an empire to which Turkish President Erdogan often celebrates.
President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled Belarus for the last 26 years and he claims to have won the most recent election last week with 80% of the votes cast. Tens of thousands of people in the country disagree and they have taken to the streets to protest what they regard as a fraudulent election. Lukashenko’s opponent, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, fled to Lithuania to avoid arrest and is organizing an opposition movement to demand a recount of the votes. For many years, Lukashenko has tried to maintain a degree of independence from Russia, but the protests have led him to ask for help from Russian President Putin. The Hill observes:
“Lukashenko’s plea to Putin marks a dramatic turnabout. Putin has been pressing Belarus for several years to integrate militarily and politically with Russia under an umbrella entity called the Union State. Lukashenko has resisted Putin’s demands, including the demand for a Russian military base in Belarus. Until very recently, in fact, Lukashenko was suggesting that Putin himself was behind the unrest following the election, and he sought to distance himself from Moscow. But either the situation has gotten bad enough that he fears losing control or else Putin has threatened to intervene against his wishes, or both. In any case, it seems likelier than ever that Putin will get the integration and basing he has sought.”
Belarus has struggled economically in the last few years and the COVID-19 pandemic has made matters worse. The economic weakness has made the country more dependent upon Russia. The EU has not made financial commitments to the country and the US has been completely absent from any economic assistance. The Belarus economic system retains many vestiges of the old communist system which ruled the Soviet Union until 1991. It has yet to make the transition to more market-oriented economic policies.
As expected, the US lost the vote on its resolution to the UN Security Council demanding the reinstatement of sanctions against Iran. The size of the defeat was decisive, as only the Dominican Republic voted to support the resolution in the 15-member Council. Russia and China voted against the resolution and all the rest of the members abstained, including US allies France, Germany, and Great Britain. The decision to abstain reflected a strong desire to preserve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the part of many members. If the resolution had passed, Iran most likely would have left the nuclear deal. Iran celebrated the defeat of the resolution:
“Washington’s European allies all abstained, and Iran mocked the Trump administration for only winning the support of one other country, the Dominican Republic.
“’In the 75 years of United Nations history, America has never been so isolated,’said [Iranian] foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi.
“’Despite all the trips, pressure and the hawking, the United States could only mobilise a small country (to vote) with them,’ he tweeted.”
The outcome was predictable, which raises the question of why the US pursued the objective despite the certainty of defeat. The US has announced that it will seek the “snapback” sanctions outlined in the JCPOA which were mandated if Iran violated the agreement. Those sanctions are supposed to become operative on 18 October. The US pulled out of the JCPOA last year and most states do not believe that the US has the legal standing to demand those sanctions: why should a state not bound by an agreement force others to adhere to that agreement?
“Because of Iran’s remarkable advances in domestic defense and control systems, it is unlikely that lifting the arms embargo would make a significant difference in how the country maintains its conventional military capability. Most of Iran’s military hardware is locally produced, meaning there is little pressure or demand for major systems.
“Moreover, even if the Iranians do rush to purchase conventional weapons from Chinese or Russian suppliers, it would have little overall effect given Iran’s recent history; Iran has not initiated a war with its neighbors in the last 150 years. But it has repeatedly fallen victim to military occupation, referred to by CIA strategists as Iran’s ‘modern tradition of defeat.’ So any new arms procurement would likely be for defensive or deterrent purposes and would be perceived by Iranians as an insurance policy against any potential attack on Iran by its adversaries.
“Plus, Iran’s defense budget is a fraction of its regional rivals’. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Iran’s defense budget in 2019 was an estimated $12.6 billion. Compare that to the United States defense budget of $732 billion, the Saudi defense budget of $61.9 billion, and the Israeli defense budget of $20.4 billion. Iran’s leaders are well aware that if they begin a buildup of conventional military capacity, the result would be that world powers, including the United States and European countries, would flood the Middle East with more advanced weaponry. Ironically, such a situation could end up restraining Iran, given that other countries are better able to engage in arms competition if the need arises.”
The fear is that if the US suffers another defeat on the sanctions matter, then it will take unilateral action to eliminate what it regards as Iran’s threat to “international peace and security”–the mandate of the UN Security Council. Such an action would certainly have the active support of Israel. And it may be regarded by some in the Trump Administration as an act that would mobilize support for Mr. Trump in the November election as there is often a “rally around the flag” mentality after military action. That attitude is very dangerous and borders on the delusional.
A research paper published today suggests that Greenland’s glaciers may have reached a point of no return due to global warming. One of the researchers made the following statement:
“‘Glacier retreat has knocked the dynamics of the whole ice sheet into a constant state of loss,’ said Ian Howat, a co-author on the paper, professor of earth sciences and distinguished university scholar at Ohio State. ‘Even if the climate were to stay the same or even get a little colder, the ice sheet would still be losing mass.’
Shrinking glaciers in Greenland are a problem for the entire planet. The ice that melts or breaks off from Greenland’s ice sheets ends up in the Atlantic Ocean—and, eventually, all of the world’s oceans. Ice from Greenland is a leading contributor to sea level rise—last year, enough ice melted or broke off from the Greenland ice sheet to cause the oceans to rise by 2.2 millimeters in just two months.”
Data going back to 2000 indicate that Greenland’s glaciers have been losing about 500 gigatons of ice every year. The finding is consistent with another new study that unfortunately suggests that among the various scenarios climatologists have modeled, some of the more pessimistic scenarios are becoming more likely. The different scenarios are called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) [I wish that scientists would come up with less opaque phrases]. The scenarios are based upon how much Carbon Dioxide is actually emitted and how the climate responds to those levels. The rankings are from best-case to worst:
“The best-case scenario (RCP 2.6) is the basis for the Paris climate agreement and would lead to warming of about 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 Celsius) by 2100. In that scenario, about 10 percent of the world’s coral reefs could survive, and 20 percent of Alpine glaciers would remain.
“The worst-case pathway (RCP 8.5) would result in warming of more than 8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.3 Celsius) by 2100, probably killing nearly all the world’s reefs and definitely pushing vast areas of polar ice sheets to melt, raising sea level by as much as 3 feet by 2100.”
So far, the actual level of CO2 emissions is closely tracking the RCP 8.5 scenario, at least up to 2050. That scenario assumes that the world does not come close to limiting C02 emissions but actually increases those emissions from keeping the emissions close to the projected increase if the world just keeps emitting at current levels. The forecast is grim.
World Politics News 