Despite diligent efforts to contain the radiation, around 5.5 metric tons of radioactive water leaked from the area in February 2024. Although the water was successfully contained before escaping the premises, preventing the surrounding environment from being contaminated, TEPCO was unable to prevent the damage done to its reputation. 

While the initial reactions to the 2011 meltdown in the international sphere were mainly those of sympathy and a growing general weariness of nuclear power, the tone changed after Japan’s announcement that it would release the treated wastewater into the ocean beginning Aug. 24, 2023. The international community, specifically Japan’s neighbors, was furious about the decision as they believe the wastewater is still toxic; however, their outcries did not deter the Japanese government’s decision. The recent wastewater spillage of 5.5 metric tons occurred around half a year after the initial release of wastewater and only contributes more to the anti-dumping rhetoric present, fighting for a reversal of Japan and TEPCO’s initiative.

South Korea, arguably one of Japan’s most valuable neighbors due to the two nations’ respective alliances with the United States, has been one of the first and most vocal in calling out Japan’s actions. The relationship between the two countries has historically been incredibly tense and volatile, largely due to Japan’s colonization of Korea during World War II. To this day, both Japan and South Korea continue to harbor resentment towards one another, making cooperation between the two difficult. However, Japan’s decision to dump the wastewater was originally viewed as a unique opening for the South Korean government to better its relationship with Japan. Under Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the South Korean government endorsed Japan and TEPCO’s dumping but was instantly met with outrage from the majority of the South Korean citizenry, who took to the streets to protest the endorsement. South Korea quickly switched its position to one of condemnation for Japan, increasing its number of trade restrictions on the regions around Fukushima.

Although the new South Korean trade restrictions harmed Japanese exports, specifically in the aquatic sector, China’s reaction to the wastewater dumpage was far worse. Unlike South Korea, the Chinese Communist Party did not waver in its response, instantly putting pressure on Japan to stop its wastewater disposal and banning aquatic goods from Fukushima and other surrounding prefectures. Ignoring the Chinese warning, Japan continued to carry out its plans, causing China to retaliate still further with a universal ban on all Japanese aquatic-based products. The import bans from South Korea and China, as well as several other countries, severely harmed Japan’s fishing sector, however, Japan’s overall economy remains strong.

Accusations about the immorality of wastewater dumping are constantly being thrown at Japan by its neighbors, but are the criticisms even valid? In terms of hazard levels, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has consistently reported that TEPCO’s wastewater dumps have all been significantly below legal radiation limits. Likewise, the entire site is compliant with IAEA guidelines, even having an IAEA office on-site for constant feedback and monitoring. The recent radioactive water spillage was one of the only notable incidents during the entire decommissioning process of Fukushima Daiichi, meaning that such mistakes are a rare occurrence. This can be attributed to TEPCO’s commitment to prevent any accidents from happening twice, being aware of the dangerous nature of the hazards they handle. While it has not necessarily done a perfect job, TEPCO has made a large effort to keep Japan compliant with the rules of the IAEA, preventing further backlash from occurring.

In addition to verifying the levels of radiation in wastewater, the IAEA is also responsible for ensuring that radiation in fisheries and other aquatic resources remains at a safe level. As such, the fish and other products produced in Fukushima prefecture have been declared legally safe for consumption, contrary to public concerns.

In terms of the international community, the case against Japan becomes far weaker when considering that some of the dissenting countries, namely China, also have a history of releasing radioactive wastewater into the ocean. China’s wastewater has actually been shown to have higher traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope created from nuclear power plants, compared to Fukushima Daiichi.

International tensions surrounding Japan’s release of radioactive wastewater most likely do not, in actuality, stem from the perceived dangers of TEPCO’s operations, but rather from Japan’s difficult history with its neighbors. Due to the precarious relationship between Japan, South Korea and China, experts theorize that it is Japan’s colonial World War II background that created a lack of trust between it and the larger international community. Becoming a major colonial power, Japan managed to colonize parts of China, all of Korea and a large section of Southeast Asia. Aside from the colonization of the respective countries, Japan also enacted the policy of comfort women in the places they conquered, forcing women into sexual slavery in brothels. The horrors of colonization, pleasure women and other terrible acts still hang heavy in the minds of many South Korean and Chinese citizens, making cooperation between the three countries difficult—the situation of Fukushima Daiichi is but another part of this pattern.

While the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown was purely domestic, its consequences had an expansive international reach. With increasing pressures from rival nations, Japan’s attitudes towards Fukushima Daiichi need to shift or else their already strained relationships might reach a breaking point. Despite this, through cooperation with protesting countries, a common ground towards the disposal of toxic wastewater could be reached, ultimately resolving this decade-long issue.

The post Fukushima Daiichi: From Local Disaster to National Issue appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This is a good thing, right? To reduce our production of polluting fossil fuel emissions? Yes and no. Yes, less greenhouse gas emissions mean a more sustainable future. However, we should not run blindly into this transition without being aware of some of the negative impacts of this energy source. 

Solar panels, like everything else, rely on the global supply chain. This means there are considerations at every step along the way, from the mining of materials to the manufacturing and endlife of panels. However, while there are problems at each step, how do they compare to the negative impacts of natural gas, which is often considered the “cleanest” fossil fuel? How do the supply chains of these two sources compare? 

Mining and Fracking

The first step to building a solar panel is extracting the necessary elements from the earth via mining. Mining unearths toxic materials and is often carried out near residential or urban environments; as such, raw material mining can lead to human safety concerns. Workers face risks of failing heavy machinery or long-term disease risks, and mining activities can also affect surrounding communities through air and water pollution. An example of this is Cerro de Pasco, Peru, where nearby water sources had 3,200x more cadmium, 6,000x more iron, 200x more manganese and 197x more zinc than national legal limits. Lead, arsenic and mercury are also found in the water. These pollutants cause cancers, kidney damage, infertility and neurological diseases. Lead has damaged brain development, social abilities and language and motor skills in children; the average IQ for children in this town is 12.3 points lower than the average for children who live in non-mining towns. The mining activity is polluting their water sources and weighing upon their quality of life.

The impact of fracking on its workers and communities is strikingly similar. Workers also face risks from the heavy machinery and air pollution produced in the process. Nearby communities can have their water supplies polluted by the toxic wastewater from fracking, which there are no federal regulations on how to dispose of. As a result of the water and air pollution, a study found that children living within two kilometers of an unconventional oil and gas well are nearly twice as likely to develop a form of leukemia. Women living near fracking sites also have a higher risk of extreme premature birth.

Manufacturing

After the materials are mined they are sent to a factory to be turned into solar panels. This process involves many steps and people. The primary concern in this stage of the process then is workers’ rights and the possibilities of forced labor. The majority of the world’s solar panels are manufactured in China, where regulatory labor oversight is not as strict. As a result, there have recently been reports of forced labor in the solar panel supply chain in China, specifically of the Uyghurs, a highly persecuted Muslim minority group. In response to these reports, the United States established a Withhold Release Order, which required any panels from China to have proof they were not made with forced labor. This helps establish more accountability in the supply chain and simultaneously disrupts it.

Waste

Unfortunately, even after solar panels have served their purpose, their disposal causes harm to people and the environment. Once they stop working at maximum efficiency, oftentimes they will be discarded by businesses and households. In the United States, about 80% to 90% of solar panels are sent to the landfill after use. This is problematic for multiple reasons; for one, it is a waste of the resources that had to be mined to make the panels. They are just discarded without the opportunity for reuse. Another reason is that as the panels deteriorate, they can leak chemicals into the soil and groundwater, causing potential pollution issues. 

This is largely a regulatory issue. In Europe, where solar panel companies are required to recycle their panels, only about 10% to 20% of their solar panels go to the landfill. If the United States implemented similar policies, landfill amounts would decrease. 

 Emission Intensity

Another measurement by which we can compare the two energy forms is through a measurement called emission intensity. Emission intensity is the total carbon emissions produced per unit of energy generated, over the entire lifetime of the source. It helps to represent the emissions from the manufacturing and transportation of solar panels against the emissions from the burning of natural gas. It turns out solar panels produce 40 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (gCO2e/kWh) over their lifetime, whereas natural gas produces 600 and coal produces 1,000. This shows that even though solar panels have their own issues, they are still a source that’s worthwhile investing in and trying to improve upon. 

Mitigation

Therefore, looking into ways to mitigate the negative impacts involved in the solar panel process is important. The most impactful way would likely be government regulations. If government regulations tighten mining laws to protect surrounding communities and ecosystems from toxic substances, set up strict laws around manufacturing labor and ensure a certain proportion of our solar panels are recycled, it could have a powerful impact on how clean the solar panel process is. For example, Mexico recently modified its mining laws to give portions of the profits to Indigenous communities, strengthened environmental quality controls and limited the length of contracts to keep the mining industry in check and keep residents safer. Introducing such laws in other countries and other stages of the process could help to improve the quality of the manufacturing process. 

Of course, it is unrealistic to hope for perfection, but we should always strive to do better in building a cleaner future.

The post The Dark Side of Solar Panels? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Saudi Arabia currently controls 17% of proven global petroleum reserves. It is classified as an oil-dependent economy because as of 2022 it earns 80% of its export income through oil and more than 40% of its GDP depends on petroleum exports, making it the third-most oil-reliant country in the world after Kuwait and Libya. These numbers are down from a decade ago, when in 2012 over 90% of export income and 45% of GDP depended on oil. Clearly, Saudi Arabia’s attempts to diversify its economy have made some progress, with forays into industries such as transportation and entertainment. 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and resulting Western sanctions on Russian oil has skyrocketed demand for oil globally, causing oil prices to increase. However, this will not be the case forever. Oil is simply not a viable option any longer for Saudi Arabia’s future. It is estimated that at the current rates of extraction, Saudi oil reserves will be completely depleted in 60 years. Oil revenues are also expected to decline significantly by 2040 because of decreases in global demand. 

Other high-oil countries (HOCs) in the Middle East — such as Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE — have faced the similar dilemma of finding a sustainable solution to the survival of their nations built on the export of an unsustainable resource. For example, Qatar — an economy built on oil and natural gas — has attempted to increase its global influence by investing in infrastructure attractive enough to draw foreign interest, such as Education City in Doha, which has branches of prestigious Western universities such as Georgetown and Cornell, or the hosting of the 2022 World Cup. 

Saudi Vision 2030 is an initiative conceptualized and led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to distance the Saudi economy from its reliance on oil — and by extent, dependence on foreign trading partners — and diversify the economy. Bin Salman is attempting  to lead the country into the future and away from what he termed “a case of oil addiction.” The initiative was introduced in April 2016, with components such as the establishment of an e-government system, the creation of a Saudi tourism industry and allowing women to drive. 

The creation of this project was spurred by the steep decrease in crude oil prices in the summer of 2014, resulting in a state budget deficit of almost $100 billion in 2015, with the Vision released the following year.

Saudi Arabia, like most HOCs in the Middle East, is a rentier state, with a significant portion of its income relying on revenues from the sale of oil to outside sources. The primary goal of the Vision was to reduce Saudi economic dependency on foreign entities.

The Saudi Vision 2030 is built around three themes: a vibrant society, a thriving economy and an ambitious nation. One component of the Vision is the National Transformation Plan (NTP), which was implemented from 2016-2020 and aimed to boost non-oil revenue to $141 billion. The plan was successful, creating almost half a million non-government jobs, transforming 24 government agencies such as the Ministry of Investment to increase efficiency and ease of foreign participation, as well as furthering bin Salman’s drive toward the secularization of the Saudi government. At the end of 2022, Saudi Arabia reported its first budget surplus in almost a decade, thanks in large part to the results of this plan. 

Another component of the Vision that has gained widespread attention and apprehension is NEOM, a planned smart city with a budget of $500 billion to be built in northern Saudi Arabia’s Takbuk province, on the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba. NEOM stands for New Future, combining the Greek word neos, meaning new, and the Arabic word mustaqbal, meaning future. 

The smart city has faced skepticism over its feasibility, but if successful would diversify the Saudi economy through tourism, similar to the restructuring of tourism industries in Gulf countries such as Qatar and the UAE. 

Part of NEOM, The Line, began construction in October of 2022. The Line is a futuristic sustainable city that is planned to revolutionize urban living by running on 100% renewable energy. It will accommodate 9 million residents within 34 square kilometers, which is unheard of compared to other cities of a similar capacity. The initiative’s focus on sustainability is driven by the desire to base the Saudi economy on ventures that — unlike the oil that has built Saudi Arabia — are not finite, investing in Saudi Arabia’s long-term future while appealing to foreign investment in their economy.

Part of the vibrant economy pillar of the Vision is a $2 trillion transformation fund aiming to reduce unemployment, increase female participation in the workforce, boost the role of the private sector in GDP, increase the localization of oil and gas sectors and increase foreign direct investment from 3.8% of GDP to the international level of 5.7%.. 

The Vision is not the first of its kind in the region, with projects such as UAE Vision 2021 and Abu Dhabi Vision 2030 which share similar objectives of social reform through economic diversification. 

In the case of UAE Vision 2021, the objective of transforming the federation of states economically, politically, and socially to become “among the best countries in the world” was successfully completed over the decade since it launched. Saudi Vision 2030 mimics the methods used by the UAE of attracting foreign investors and integrating itself into the global tourism industry, expanding the international appeal of what is portrayed to be the technologically advanced ultra-wealthy utopia of the UAE.

The oil boom in the Middle East really began after the end of WWII, when HOCs in the region began producing oil on a large scale and resulting in immense revenues flowing into economically underdeveloped nations. Although it would be reasonably assumed that these economic inflows from high oil demand would lead to rapid growth, these countries were not equipped to ensure they benefited most effectively from the oil wealth. 

Oil-dependent economies in the Middle East began to develop symptoms of the “resource curse,” which is a paradoxical situation where a country possesses an abundance of valuable natural resources but underperforms in terms of economic development. One clear example of this is Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family is the richest in the world with an estimated $1.4 trillion in oil wealth, while 20% of the country’s population lives in poverty.  

Because the oil in Saudi Arabia and many other Middle Eastern HOCs is under private ownership, usually by the monarch and their family, there has been little to no oversight of the management of oil revenues or requirements for their use in public endeavors. 

However, revenues from oil were used somewhat throughout the Gulf countries for domestic development, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s the societies of countries such as the UAE and Qatar were completely transformed. The effect oil has had on the Middle East cannot be understated. Life expectancy increased in Saudi Arabia from 40 in 1950 to 75 in 2022. Transportation and sewer systems were built, quality of life improved astronomically and infrastructure projects have continued over the decades.

Through the Vision’s economic reforms, Saudi Arabia has already enacted “sin taxes,” with a 100% excise tax on energy drinks and tobacco, and a 15% value-added tax on almost all goods and services. This is in addition to taxing the private sector and landowners, and removing subsidies and stipends, although currently personal income is not taxed for Saudi citizens. Before the Vision, the government had never directly taxed its citizens, but the goal of these reforms is to increase reliance on domestic revenue to finance Saudi Arabia instead of external funding. 

When a nation’s government utilizes taxation, this comes with the expectation of the country’s citizens of social pillars, such as infrastructure and government representation. When a state does not have to tax its citizens for financial support, this frees the government from any perceived social responsibility, creating a lack of accountability.

However, now that taxation has been implemented within Saudi Arabia in ways that affect its citizens, it would have been expected that the Saudis would protest for greater political participation. There was a trend on Twitter in 2020 shortly after further tax increases of posting pictures of the late King Abdullah, the former monarch who passed away in January of 2015, who was well-known for his concern for the poor. However, thus far, King Salman and the Crown Prince have managed any objections to the taxation by increasing social freedoms while also increasing repression. 

This taxation is occurring as the nation is moving away from providing the plethora of public services previously funded by oil revenues. Citizens are paying the government more money for less social infrastructure, reaping fewer of the government-subsidized benefits they had enjoyed for the last 50 years.

As more of Saudi Arabia’s wealth is generated domestically as a result of the Vision, Saudi Arabia’s susceptibility to the whims and ulterior motives of foreign governments may decrease as the nation becomes more reliant on apolitical private sector foreign direct investment in the future.

Over the six years that the Vision has been enacted there has been measurable social and economic success: the share of women in the labor market has increased to 37% from 17% in 2016, tourism increased by 4 billion visitors between 2017 and 2019, and foreign direct investment increased from $1.42 billion in 2017 to $5.4 billion in 2020. 

The Vision’s approach to ensure Saudi Arabia’s survival is having profound impacts on Saudi society and domestic governance. If successful, it could provide a model for other oil-dependent countries attempting to find their way into a future without the very resource that built their economies, ushering in an era of unprecedented political and social independence from the influence of foreign powers in the Gulf and profoundly transforming the political makeup of these societies. 

The post What Saudi Vision 2030 Means for the Future of Oil-Dependent Economies appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Photos by: Lauren Schulsohn and Jacob Wisnik

Just a little over 150 miles from the heart of downtown Los Angeles lies the Salton Sea, once a bustling vacation destination for Hollywood stars and affluent beach goers in the 1950s, is now a toxic, primarily abandoned, eerily beautiful, reminiscent place of what once was. Finance Chair Jacob Wisnik, Governor Cameron Mellilo and myself, President Lauren Schulsohn made the four hour trek — thank you Southern California traffic — to explore this unique destination.

South of Palm Springs, and, in the midst of the Southern California desert, is the Salton Sea. The current body of water that comprises the Salton Sea is not a naturally formed lake. Rather, following the flooding of a canal being constructed on the Colorado River, in 1905, the excess water created the Salton Sea. It is not necessarily rare to see a large body of water in this area as Lake Cahuilla existed for approximately 2,000 years and then disappeared after 1580. However, what is of concern, is that as the Salton Sea was accidently man-made, there is no fresh-water flowing into the lake.

As the lake has no fresh water flowing into its body, it has consistently struggled to sustain its size. In an effort to preserve the size of the lake and to efficiently discard agricultural waste, as the Salton Sea sits in Imperial County, home to approximately 500,000 farmable acres, farmers began funneling their agricultural run-off into the lake. And for years, this strategy worked, and allowed for the construction of resorts, yacht-clubs, restaurants, and a bustling beach town with the occasional visit from the Beach Boys and Frank Sinatra. The lake even served as a WWII Naval Auxiliary Air Station that tested dummy atomic bombs to better understand aerodynamics. However, as the 1970s came along, without a fresh-water source, the lake struggled with rising salinity, toxic pesticides, and flooding that came from excessive dumping of agricultural runoff, leaving resorts destroyed and optimism low – people got up and left. Today, the Salton Sea is virtually a ghost town.

In the last 25 years, the Salton Sea has lost a third of its water, and due to decreased rainfall and rapid climate change, it is projected that California’s largest body of water will lose 75% of its current volume by 2030. The remaining fresh water sources that did flow into the lake were cut-off in 2003 and re-routed to San Diego county. In the face of drought, California believed that the fresh-water would have more use in San Diego county as over 3 more million people inhabit the area. 

The degradation of the Salton Sea has had significant implications on the environment and human-life. In the summer of 1999, the Los Angeles Times reported that on average 7.6 million fish die every day. Today, there are barely any fish in the lake left that can stand the high-levels of salinity. The ones that can, such as the Mozambique tilapia, western mosquitofish, and the native desert pupfish, reside on the few toxic waterways that flow into the lake. These waterways are also already extremely polluted by the time they reach the Salton Sea. While there used to be swaths of dead fish piled high each year as a result of the toxicity, today, these piles do not even occur as there are nearly no fish left. Instead, one can see the reminiscence of the piled high dead fish as crushed fish bones primarily make up the sand on Salton Sea beaches and dead fish residing on the bottom of the lake create a distinct smell that is unmissable. 

After exploring the ruins of Bombay Beach, our team drove out to Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge to examine the bird populations. Over 400 different bird species reside in this area allowing the population of birds to be over 100,000, with even more in winter months. While that estimate does seem like a lot, it is only half or even a third of what used to live on the Salton Sea just a decade ago. White pelicans, a popular icon of the Sea, have become a nearly impossible site. Without abundant fish populations, birds find other places to spend their time; however, non-fish eating birds will most likely always continue to find their way to the Salton Sea.

The human and economic toll on this area has been vast. The air surrounding the sea has become increasingly toxic with a high concentration of aerosolized particulates. As a result, the air is causing respiratory illness and higher levels of childhood asthma. Due to the toxicity of the lake and the consistent shrinkage, it is difficult to set up businesses as people cannot rely on the lake for entrepreneurship. No one uses the lake for fishing and there is not a single company that you can rent a boat to ride on the lake. It is projected that the Salton Sea will cost Greater Palm Springs billions in lost tourist revenue in the next five years. 

Imperial County, populated by 180,000 people, is 80.9% Latino, 13.7% White and 10.5% African-American, has higher levels of poverty, with 23% of the population living below the poverty line, which is 8% higher than the California average. 

Being less than 40 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border on the lake’s most southern tip, our team had to go through two border checkpoints on our drive around the sea. Routinely, drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine, are found at these checkpoints, often with quantities over $100,000.

One source of sustainable economic growth has been the geothermal energy facilities that first began operation in 1982. As the Salton Sea lies on the San Andreas fault line, these facilities work to harvest the energy from hot fluid. Following the gathering of energy from this hot fluid, they infuse the now cooled fluid back into the ground. There are 11 facilities around the Salton Sea conducting this work.
In recent years, it has been discovered that enormous deposits of lithium reside underneath the Salton Sea and its surrounding areas. Experts believe that there is enough lithium in this area to provide batteries for over 50 million electric vehicles over a three year period. Instead of these facilities putting the cooled fluid back into the ground immediately, they would first extract the fluid for lithium before inserting it back into the ground. In a political landscape that is putting greater emphasis on electric machinery and automation, once the technology for this type of lithium mining is fully developed, operations will most likely begin.

While there are some prospects for economic revitalization via lithium mining, after speaking with locals, the sentiment was all the same; even if they cannot swim in the lake, they don’t want to see it gone. Doing nothing to mitigate decreasing water levels also is not even a safe solution as the air is becoming increasingly toxic and endangered species are suffering great losses. 

Over the years, many research studies and calls for action have taken place, and despite this work, real change has not come. Some recommendations have called for providing an influx of fresh water to the Salton Sea; however, this project would cost billions of dollars and only impact a small population of California. In November, the federal government pledged $250 million to restore the Salton Sea as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and in December, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a contract to find short and long term solutions to help preserve the Salton Sea. 

Although the solution to restoring the Salton Sea is unclear, just like any place facing environmental degradation, life continues to live on in the area, and in many ways, flourish. The Salton Sea area has an influx of people moving in, beautiful structures of art are constantly being created, and on our adventure, we saw other tourists marveling at the majestic bird population. In our journalistic pursuit to assess severe environmental effects, we also found ourselves enjoying Cabernet Sauvignon with the locals at America’s only lawless city known as Slab City, drinking date milkshakes in Westmorland, and cleaning off our muddy shoes after a genuinely fun day at the Salton Sea. 

Despite our fun, the Salton Sea is not just a ghost town trying to find its identity in a society that has left it behind. We must use the Salton Sea as a lesson of inaction that can be applied across the world. Yes, life lives on, but every time there is an environmental threat or disaster, we cannot wait to see what happens. We must act. And our stop of inaction and start of action should begin right in our own backyard, with the restoration of the Salton Sea. 

The post A Lesson of Inaction in Our Own Backyard: The Salton Sea appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As the only country producing nuclear energy in the Caucasus region, Armenia has relied heavily on nuclear power since 1976. The Metsamor nuclear power plant, located about 35 kilometers from the capital city of Yerevan, generates roughly 40% of the country’s electricity. From its inception as a Soviet-era plant to its current-day operation, the history of the Metsamor power plant is riddled with Russian presence — a presence that tiptoes the fine line of colonization in every chapter it is found.

Today, Russia seems to have taken the long-uncertain future of Armenia’s power plant into its own hands. Currently commissioned until 2026, the life of the Metsamor plant will be extended for another ten years through Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy corporation. 

Moreover, in 2021, Russia expressed interest in deepening its energy investments in Armenia’s nuclear power sector and undertaking larger projects, such as the building of a new power unit at Metsamor. Months later, Russia’s interests would materialize into a signed agreement between Rosatom and Armenia’s nuclear power plant.

Notably, although nuclear power is a large component of Armenia’s energy profile, natural gas remains Armenia’s primary energy import, comprising over 80% of total imports. Russia imports roughly 85% of this natural gas to Armenia while Iran imports the rest, the latter partly in exchange for Armenian electricity exports. 

With Russia deeply entangled in every nook and cranny of Armenia’s energy sector, an emerging pattern of Russian energy colonization in Armenia — a remnant of a lingering post-Soviet legacy three decades after dissolution — seems to rear its ugly head. The Metsamor nuclear power plant is merely one case study highlighting the root causes of Armenia’s crippling energy dependence on Moscow. 

Such a relationship, of course, bears geopolitical implications, as well.

Under the corrupt and criminal leadership of Armenian administrations whose interests aligned more closely with Russia’s than their country’s, Armenia gradually sold its most critical energy infrastructures to Russia. In exchange for securing cheap Russian gas in the short term, the leadership in Yerevan forsook the west’s push for energy diversification. 

Fortunately for Yerevan, after the 2018 Velvet Revolution, Armenia is no longer governed by the corrupt oligarchs who sold their country’s energy sector — and therefore a crucial piece of its independence — to Russia; however, the legacy of their corrupt dealings with Gazprom and Moscow at large will remain for several decades to come.

Furthermore, Russia’s investment in Armenia’s nuclear sector comes amid a broader pattern of energy colonization in the region. Similar offers-turned-deals to invest in Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Belarussian nuclear power have been undertaken by Moscow in recent months and years. 

Meanwhile, the same recklessness Russian President Vladimir Putin employs in his foreign policy seems to be ever-present in Moscow’s nuclear endeavors, which subject the recipient state — or colony, in the Kremlin’s eyes — to significant safety concerns and associated risks.

In securing Yerevan’s long-term dependence for nuclear energy, Russia significantly also gains another degree of leverage over a former Soviet republic whose geopolitical predicament is a national security risk in its own right. Sandwiched between hostile neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan, not even the Metsamor power plant has been immune to the dangers this entails.

For its own part, Turkey has repeatedly wielded rhetoric about the dangers of Armenia’s power plant, located roughly 15 kilometers from its border, for political gain. Its concerns, cited far too frequently to be genuine, are also largely hypocritical when considering Ankara’s own partnership with Russia for development of its nuclear sector. Moreover, the Turkish- and Azerbaijani-imposed economic blockade of Armenia, which has financially devastated the country, is a main driver for the necessity of Armenia’s nuclear production.

On the other hand, Baku’s aggressive foreign policy, incessant warmongering and expressed ethnic cleansing agenda against the Armenians located both within its internationally recognized borders and outside pose a unique threat in the context of Armenia’s nuclear power plant.

In July 2021, as tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan were boiling over leading up to Baku’s preemptive war against Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan threatened to employ a missile attack against the Metsamor power plant. Self-evidently, the implications of such an attack would be catastrophic, despicable and constitute a direct terrorist threat to Armenia and its neighboring countries.

Ultimately, Armenia’s Metsamor power plant is not only a symbol of Russia’s energy colonization but a testament to the infinitely complex geopolitical disposition Armenia finds itself in. Like every sector of its host country, competing regional interests and Russian hegemony have overtaken Armenia’s nuclear power plant, as well. 

Whether or not the Metsamor plant will weather the storm relies entirely on Yerevan’s long-term planning and the conduct of regional actors. 

The current trajectory, however, seems to be Moscow-bound.

The post The Russian Nuclear Threat, Recontextualized: Energy Colonization and Armenia’s Nuclear Power Plant appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This conversation has followed the proliferation of nuclear power plants as well as its disasters, with infamous ones such as Chernobyl sticking in the public’s mind. However, there is no clear answer in this debate. Rather, it is important to recognize the merits of both sides and make informed decisions on a case-by-case basis. 

CONS – Ivana Karastoeva

A major concern regarding nuclear energy usage is safety in regards to humans, animals, and the land and ecosystems around us. 

The immediate fallout from the 1986 nuclear meltdown catastrophe in Chernobyl, Ukraine included radiation sickness, which caused the death of 134 workers present on the site. Meanwhile, those who survived suffered from radiation-induced cataracts. Long term health effects were also observed. According to the Journal of Radiological Protection, higher incidence of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents who were exposed to radiation has been observed 20 years following the incident. 

Moreover, the surrounding landscape was also heavily impacted. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency, a dense cloud of radioactive dust containing cesium-137 and more than a dozen other radionuclides engulfed surrounding forests and fields. Since then, the migration of airborne radionuclides into the forest soil has led to many plants adopting them into their life cycle, prolonging contamination. 

Though it appears that Chernobyl has been a flourishing biodiversity hub for plants and animals since the absence of humans, studies have shown that the radiation this wildlife has been exposed to has had extreme biological effects. For example, bird species residing in areas of high radiation have experienced higher mortality rates, smaller brains and mutations, evidencing significant genetic damage. 

A more recent example of nuclear power plants harming ecosystems is the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. This plant was permanently shut down on April 30, 2021, for unrelated reasons, but during its 59-year operation, it was discovered that the plant’s cooling water intake system had killed billions of fish, eggs and fish larvae annually, contributing to the decline of fish species populations in the Hudson River. 

National security is also a matter of concern. In the case of a terrorist attack or a foreign occupation during wartime as seen with the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine, nuclear power plants are vulnerable targets. 

Another concern that is brought up — if not the most important one — is the handling of nuclear waste. Nuclear fuel rods remain radioactive for about 10,000 years, and more than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste have been produced worldwide from nuclear plants and weapons production facilities. 

Despite this, there still exists no long-term solution to storing this waste safely and effectively. Currently, all nuclear waste produced by a plant is stored on-site in dry casks. In some cases, these temporary containers have outlived their design lives and leaked harmful radiation to their surrounding environment. One example is the Hanford Nuclear Waste Site in Washington state, where an estimated 3.5 gallons of radioactive waste were said to be leaking from the storage tanks per day, contaminating the soil and the Columbia River. 

Currently, Finland is creating the world’s first nuclear waste tomb meant to contain nuclear waste secured underground for 100,000 years. This, however, brings up a new concern regarding how to best communicate the dangers of these permanent disposal sites long after humanity goes extinct.

PROS – Samantha Chapman

While nuclear energy isn’t perfect, it is currently the best compromise between adequate energy to power modern energy needs and a low-carbon source that meets climate goals and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 

It’s hard to be picky when there are so few options in a time of crisis. There are cleaner energy sources like wind and solar power, which are renewable and produce minimal to zero waste. However, as the technology stands, these sources are unreliable — solar energy can only be generated during the day, and even then only when the weather permits. Moreover, wind energy can only be generated when it’s windy, and the technology is not yet advanced enough to properly store any excess energy created at these times. 

As a result, this energy cannot be relied upon as any community’s main source of energy. It’s a useful supplement, but still necessitates another reliable energy source. 

On the other end of the spectrum, sources like coal or oil are extremely reliable and can be used on demand. However, they are a lot more harmful to the environment than nuclear energy. They pollute the air and oceans, and release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, which are  major contributors to climate change. Meanwhile, nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy source and generates almost one third of the world’s carbon-free electricity. So at this crucial point in time, nuclear energy is the compromise we need. 

With the current rate of carbon emissions and rapidly mounting global temperature, we cannot afford to be selective with solutions. 

Nuclear energy is by no means perfect, but it is important to think about how any risks or by-products can be limited instead of dismissing the possibility as a whole. Nuclear reactors can be dangerous, but with proper management and safety culture, any associated risks can be significantly reduced. 

No alternative is going to be accident-proof — everything comes with its share of risks and potential problems. It’s a matter of managing the risks specific to nuclear energy. For instance, the disaster at Fukushima is considered a man-made incident which was triggered by natural hazards, one that could and should have been avoided. There was inadequate regulatory oversight in Japan and a sloppy safety culture at the plant. 

A similar plant, Onagawa, was also hit by the same earthquake and suffered from flooding; yet, it shut down effectively and avoided disaster. The difference between the two were the managing teams, meaning one that emphasized tight safety regulations and one that did not. Relative to the number of nuclear reactors operative in the past and currently operative, the number of disasters is extremely low. Just three major disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island) have occurred. This shows both how few and far between disasters are, and how essential safety culture at the plants is to their stability. 

The production and management of nuclear waste is a major consideration of nuclear energy, as it should be. It is important to have a comprehensive knowledge of any system, and waste by-products are an important aspect of nuclear energy. 

However, nuclear energy produces minimal amounts of waste relative to other energy sources, which is to say it is extremely energy-dense. For the equivalent of the energy extracted from a single one-inch pellet of Uranium, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 120 gallons of oil or one ton of coal would have to be burned, Thus, producing the same amount of energy generates less comparative waste. 

It cannot be overlooked that this waste is toxic, and while it is not harmful in the same way as carbon emissions, it has issues of its own. However, it is better to recognize the problems that come with nuclear energy and ask how we can develop technology to neutralize them, rather than using them as reasons to abandon it entirely. 

For instance, new reactor designs have recently been developed that can operate on used fuel, which would cut down on waste. Whereas the issue with fossil fuels is unavoidable (as it will always involve releasing carbon into the atmosphere), the problems with nuclear energy can be solved with further development of technology. 

An example of a country that has embraced nuclear energy is France. Over 70 percent of the country’s energy comes from nuclear power and 17 percent comes from recycled nuclear fuel. As a result, France has relatively low carbon emissions at about 4.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita in 2019 compared to Germany’s 7.91, Russia’s 11.8 and the United States’ 14.67. After nuclear, France’s energy comes from hydro and wind power, with natural gas, coal and oil collectively only making up less than 9 percent of their energy. 

The proliferation of nuclear energy in France came about in 1974 after the first oil shock, when France decided to expand its nuclear power capacity. This decision stemmed from the fact that the country is advanced in engineering, but has limited natural resources. It is also the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to the very low cost of energy generation in nuclear power plants, which brings in over $3 billion a year, an argument for the financial and economical aspect of nuclear energy. 

Because of the country’s reliance on nuclear energy, France is also a leader in nuclear technology and reactors. Since 1985, France has reduced its nuclear waste production by two thirds. Its waste is processed, sealed in specially designed containers and placed in temporary storage in a plant, where it is to be moved in 2035 to an underground secure storage facility for long-term residence. 

Conclusion

Nuclear energy is truly a topic of major contention in the sustainable energy debate. On the one hand, it produces zero carbon emissions and is the most reliable source of clean energy — but on the other, it produces radioactive waste that will surpass human existence. 

But all hope is not lost as scientists continue to work to find new, cleaner and more efficient energy sources that meet our energy without bringing harm to the environment. 

The post Is Nuclear Power a Sustainable Energy Alternative? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

“100% sustainable.” 

Not the words one would typically associate with the Olympics, of all things, but it was one of the big stories of the 2022 Beijing Olympics. 

All venues were powered using green energy, carbon offsetting was used to make up for any carbon emissions produced during the games and more sustainable construction practices were used to build the facilities. 

Despite all of this, one could not help but notice the giant cooling towers that loomed in the background of the big air venue as snowboarders and skiers twirled in the air. While these towers are no longer in operation, they do represent an interesting contrast — not only at the Olympics, but for China as a whole. 

There is no denying China’s growing role in the sustainability movement. Beijing is both the world’s largest producer of solar and wind energy and the largest investor, domestically and abroad, in green energy. In addition, China supplies the vast majority of solar panel materials to the United States and other countries. 

However, one sustainable energy source which has declined in the United States and other countries is surging forward in China, on the trajectory to becoming one of its largest sources of energy. 

That energy? Nuclear. 

Despite this interest in expanding nuclear energy, however, China’s use of fossil fuels — coal in particular — has also risen in recent years. Just last month, the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported that the coal supply will increase in the country, in addition to power plants running at maximum capacity to help meet electricity demand. 

On the one hand, China remains a superpower in renewable energy. On the other, they continue to rely on coal for basic energy needs. 

So, what exactly are China’s sustainable energy goals? And how does nuclear energy fit into the overall picture?

China and Nuclear Energy 

In terms of overall nuclear energy output, the United States remains the highest, holding 30.8% of the global nuclear energy consumption to China’s 13.6%. However, China leads the world in nuclear plant construction and plans to build 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years in contrast to the United States, which has shut down 39 facilities as of April 2021. 

Given China’s massive population, it makes sense that the government will pursue the investment in nuclear energy to complement its green transition. 

This is because nuclear energy is extremely reliable and can produce more energy than sustainable competitors. It has the highest capacity factor out of any energy source at almost 93%, which essentially means it is running at 100% power for almost the entire year. Due to minimal maintenance requirements and longevity, nuclear power plants can run longer and more reliably than other forms of energy, (sustainable and fossil fuels alike). 

“Domestically, nuclear power also makes sense for China from the standpoint of energy security,” said Kelly Sanders, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California in an interview with US-China Today. As the recent conflict in Ukraine has revealed, the fossil fuel market is extremely volatile. Switching to nuclear helps shore up these shortages. 

Sanders also noted how “nuclear is a direct substitute for coal.” Both deliver electricity; thus, one can shut down a coal plant and replace it with a nuclear one, with the added benefits of less air pollution and a more reliable, consistent energy supply. 

It is for these reasons that China and Chinese President Xi Jinping have been adamant about expanding nuclear energy in the country, advertising a plan to spend over $440 billion in the next 15 years to create new nuclear energy reactors. 

This is the type of money countries like the United States aspire to spend on their sustainable energy sector. U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent infrastructure bill, which was passed after months of concessions and push-backs, for instance, dedicates only $10 billion to nuclear projects. This reveals some of the challenges Western democracies face when trying to address the climate crisis — politics, public opinion and budgetary regulations, among other things. China does not face such setbacks. 

China’s Geopolitical Strategy

But China’s desire to expand its nuclear capacities lies beyond its own domestic agenda. China continues to invest heavily in nuclear technology, becoming one of the primary developers of “Generation 4” reactors. It recently placed into operation one such reactor known as the “Pebble Bed”, which is reportedly “incapable of meltdowns.” 

Not only does this showcase China’s technological growth, but it also reveals their desire to export these reactors to other countries, similar to China’s dominance in the solar panel industry. 

For example, Pakistan has long been a valued customer for Chinese nuclear reactors, with five having been built in the country since 1993. China also recently established an $8 billion deal with Argentina. Moreover, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), it is projected to build 30 reactors by 2030 in a number of participating countries.

As China continues to innovate and produce more efficient reactors, this only further incentivizes other countries, especially in the developing world, to invest in this technology. This, in turn, increases China’s export abilities. 

But it is not all smooth sailing. Many countries remain skeptical about China and its business practices. For one, the United States is an unlikely destination for this technology. As of Aug. 2019, the United States added one of China’s state-owned nuclear companies to a blacklist for allegedly stealing military technology. Romania also canceled its nuclear deal with China and instead signed a partnership with the United States. Other deals with countries such as Kenya and Egypt have also stalled. 

In a larger sense, this skepticism of China’s nuclear program stems from a larger fear of nuclear energy, its potential for disaster, its huge price tag and the toxic waste. “A lot of the world is scared of building more nuclear power plants”, said Sanders. “The world opinion on nuclear energy took a big hit after Fukushima.”

In addition, China has not yet signed various international treaties that set standards for liability in the case of an accident, making other countries more cautious when it comes to importing Chinese reactors and technology, let alone investing in nuclear energy in general.

There is also the problem of uranium. 

China hopes to gain independence from competitors in the energy market through nuclear expansion, and yet, over two-thirds of the total mined Uranium supply in the world lies in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan. China, meanwhile, only has access to around 4% of the world’s Uranium supply. Thus, until nuclear energy begins to transition away from Uranium as a chief source of fuel, China and its partners will continue to rely on other countries for its supply. 

However, Sanders also noted that uranium “is pretty easy to mine, and pretty easy to move, unlike natural gas.” Because of this, “it is a pretty uncontentious fuel to import,” hinting that China should have no issue finding its share of Uranium.

The Broader Context

China’s investment in nuclear energy and its larger push towards renewables comes against the backdrop of declining U.S. leadership in this field. To this point, former U.S. President Donald Trump oversaw a reversal in policies aimed at combating climate change. In response, China criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and reaffirmed its own commitment to meeting future climate goals. 

Although Biden rejoined the Paris accord and has since tried to reestablish the United States as a champion of environmental sustainability, other countries are increasingly turning to China for leadership in tackling the climate crisis. The EU and China have sought cooperation with each other and recently staked out new goals to combat climate change. China no doubt sees this U.S. drop-off as an opportunity to take initiative and establish itself as a global leader in environmental policy. 

It should be noted that through China’s BRI, the production and implementation of high-carbon facilities, mostly coal-fired power plants, are being introduced to host countries. However, many of the projects funded by BRI threaten biodiversity, as well as important ecosystems and water resources. 

Thus, in the coming years, it appears that China will continue to be a leader in sustainable energy practices at home. However, whether this extends to their development partners is yet to be determined. 

This dichotomy calls into question if China’s green transition is for the purpose of sustainability, or merely a political strategy to gain leverage on the global stage. 

The post The Nuclear Option: China’s Expanding Energy Portfolio appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In Favor of The Line: Sari Goldberg

While doubts on the viability of such a futuristic concept like the Line are valid, its creation comes at a time when global society has reached a tipping point in the fight against climate change. The livability and environmental crisis currently facing cities around the world can no longer be ignored, especially as the air quality in cities is worsened as the population, traffic, industrialization and energy use increase. Drastic changes to our ways of living are necessary, and the Line is paving a new path for imaginative solutions.

On July 25, 2022, Royal Highness Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and Chairman of the NEOM Board of Directors, announced the idea for the Line as a city that redefines the concept of urban development. Prince Mohammed said, “NEOM will be a place for all people from across the globe to make their mark on the world in creative and innovative ways. NEOM remains one of the most important projects of Saudi Vision 2030.” Vision 2030 is composed of Saudi policy and projects meant to transform the nation economically and socially. Building of the Line, a key aspect of these reforms, began in October of 2021 and primary residents are expected to move in during 2024. As of July 2022, the first phase is projected to be completed by 2030. 

The Line, while 110 miles long, will preserve 95% of the nature within Neom, the developing city in the Tabuk Province in northwestern Saudi Arabia. With 9 million residents, the Line will have a population density of 260,000 people per square kilometer. In comparison, the most densely populated city in 2020 had 44,000 per square kilometer. 

By compacting the city between the two 1,600 ft high mirrored buildings, separated by a 660 ft outdoor space, the city is directly combating negative impacts of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas, creating low-density communities. It increases the need for transportation and reduces the land available for agriculture, exacerbating air and water pollution and limiting the landscape available to capture carbon dioxide. The sustainable city’s design is composed of vertically layered communities, which will challenge the traditional horizontal city and preserve nature, as well as enhance human livability. 

Energy production is the leading cause of unsustainable living, accounting for two-thirds of total greenhouse gas emission. By 2030, the world will face economic losses of $2 billion a day from climate-related issues. In response, the city will run on 100% renewable energy, shifting the country away from its primarily oil-based economy. 

The development will be zero-carbon through the elimination of carbon-intensive infrastructure like cars and roads. Mobility will be accessible by a high-speed rail with an end-to-end transit time of just 20 minutes. Residents will have access to all necessary facilities within a five-minute walk. The accessibility and convenience will reduce commutes, creating more time for leisure. Reducing former expenses, like car insurance and fuel, will also give residents higher disposable income. 

According to press releases, the Line will have the most food autonomy in the world. Currently, Saudi Arabia imports around 80% of its food, but the city plans to include greenhouses and vertical farming to reduce its external reliance drastically. 

While construction of the Line has just begun, it brings a new wave of ideas to the table. Addressing climate change will require large-scale actions taken by the most prominent actors on the world stage. According to an annual ranking by the CEOWORLD magazine, Saudi Arabia was named the 11th most powerful country in the world and first in the Islamic and Arab world for 2021. As the world’s second largest oil producer and largest exporter of oil, Saudi Arabia will be a key player as the global community is forced to address climate change. Even if the Line is the most dramatic solution seen by the international community, Saudi ambitions should inspire others to incorporate some of its goals and aspirations. The planet is changing, so the world must be prepared to change alongside it. 

Against The Line: Jasmijn Teunissen

Construction of the seemingly utopian city proposed in Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s promotional video should not continue as it is financially and environmentally unsustainable. The design of the Line goes against traditional urban sprawl, as cities tend to expand outward as they grow. “Hub-and-spoke” transit systems tend to work best; where arms of transit are connected to avoid individuals having to travel back to a central transit station. The unique composition of the Line would thus require advanced transit technology to be efficient and achieve the promised travel time of 20 minutes across 160 miles. Transit technology required to reach the speed of 318 mph (512 km/h), does not currently exist as it outpaces current high-speed-rail technology. 

Despite marketing for the Line emphasizing sustainability and ‘zero-carbon emissions’ expert urban planners are skeptical of the embodied carbon impact of building the Line and all associated infrastructure. The massive height of the Line would require strength to withstand wind. Professor Philip Oldfield of UNSW claims “You cannot build a 500-meter-tall building out of low-carbon materials,” as it would need a “phenomenal quantity of steel, glass and concrete.” He estimates that construction of the Line would produce upwards of 1.8 billion tons of embodied carbon dioxide, equivalent more than four years of the UK’s entire emissions.

The Line’s design might disrupt biodiversity due to a greater edge effect impacting animal crossing. For migrating birds, for example, the large mirrored structures are highly dangerous. Others accuse the Prince of greenwashing, by making elaborate proposals for the city to distract from reality. The accusations of greenwashing are not the first the Prince has faced, as critics have noted the hard contrast between the nation’s unwavering dependency on oil and extensive environmental commitments such as promises to plant 450 million trees across the country. Saudi Arabia remains a top oil producer and has promised to increase production, despite the fact that to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius global oil production needs to fall by roughly 5% a year between now and 2030.

Construction of the Line threatens human rights, as it would forcibly displace thousands, including the Howeitat tribe which has lived peacefully in the area for generations. On Oct. 7, a Saudi court sentenced three Howeitat members to death for opposing the eviction. The Howeitat tribe sent an urgent request for a UN investigation into allegations of forced displacement and abuse by Saudi authorities.

Doubt of the project’s viability has also resonated amongst Neom employees, evident by the recent wave of resignations. Realization of the Prince’s overly ambitious plan has spread, as dozens of employees have resigned, some senior employees walking out on salaries of up to $1 million a year. The Prince’s initial goal to attract foreign investment through the futuristic project has fallen short, except for discussions with some foreign companies, including Russian ones. The intended completion of the Line is 2030 with an allotted $500 billion, however, some reports contend that the city will likely not be completed until 2050, upping costs significantly to an estimated $1 trillion. The project is funded by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the kingdom’s sovereign wealth private investment fund. The viability of the PIF relies heavily on oil exports, a market characterized by volatility. Many Saudis, unsatisfied with the tax pressure and the belief that the projects are unlikely to yield a substantial return over the short run have expressed dissatisfaction with heavy spending on high-profile projects such as the Line. 

Construction of the Line should not advance. The project goes against successful urban planning models, it threatens biodiversity in the region and continuation of it violates human rights due to forced eviction. 

Conclusion: 

Any unprecedented innovations come with uncertainties. The construction of the Line brings  concerns of adverse environmental impacts, questions of the viability of the architecture, and controversy surrounding forced evictions at the construction site. However, this revolutionized civilization may also usher in a new wave of innovative approaches to tackling pressing contemporary issues in climate justice, renewable energy, and sustainability. As developments in Saudi Arabia continue to progress led by crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, the global community will be watching and anticipating if this radical approach can succeed and thrive.    

The post Saudi Arabia: Is “The Line” a Viable Solution to Climate Change? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Throughout COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, indigenous peoples, politicians from the Global South and climate activists faced systemic repression ranging from large-scale arrests, limited transportation, no interpreters for events, etc. As these groups called for reforms by the Global North, their voices appeared to fall on deaf ears while politicians from the United States, the EU, Canada and more pushed alternatives such as green hydrogen as the way of the future as opposed to a full phase-out of fossil fuels. 

From the beginning of week one, the United States remained firm on its position to not add finances to an additional loss and damage fund, which was a non-negotiable matter for the G-77 and China. As a result, at one point during the talks, these countries suggested they were willing to walk out if such finances were not provided, and while the countries continued to negotiate this issue, due to a lack of consensus, the talks were extended by two additional days. It was in this short extension time that everything drastically shifted.

On Saturday morning, the talks “appeared close to collapse.” Beyond the unresolved issue of a loss and damage fund, debates surrounding clear language on a fossil fuel phase-out and even the inclusion of language surrounding human rights remained. However, the unity of the Global South and civil society positively influenced the final outcomes of negotiations and pushed for an agreed upon resolution that included elements of climate justice. As a result of the outcome, many individuals, such as Ephraim Mwepya Shitima, the chairman of the African Group of Negotiators noted how they “’will be going back smiling’” because the final resolution passed in COP27, the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan, “’is a victory, not only for Africa, but for developing nations.’”

The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan makes tremendous strides in addressing a just transition into renewable energy by recognizing “the important role of indigenous peoples, local communities, cities and civil society, including youth and children, in addressing and responding to climate change.” The resolution also places an emphasis on “common but differentiated responsibilities” and acknowledges the significance of both the cryosphere and oceans when combating the climate crisis. Beyond these efforts to ensure an “equitable transition,” one of the most important elements of the Implementation Plan is the fact that it includes the highly contested loss and damage fund. The resolution ensures that the Global North will establish a fund for those “particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.”

The plan also “[r]esolves to pursue further efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5*C,” yet regardless of this effort and the progress in the realm of climate justice, many scholars have argued that there was actually backsliding on the question of fossil fuel phase-down. In Article 4.13, rather than arguing for a complete phase-out of coal and all other fossil fuels, the text calls for a “phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” Therefore, there is no concrete language to firmly address the driver of climate change – fossil fuels. 

Similar to how civil society and the Global South pushed for a loss and damage fund along with a just transition, the fossil fuel delegation, one of the largest groups at the COP numbering at 636, pushed their own agenda. The efforts of the fossil fuel delegation, which increased 25% from last year, effectively worked with oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia to limit the mention of fossil fuels. As a result, the executive vice president of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans highlights how the final resolution, “puts unnecessary barriers in the way and allows the parties to shy away from their responsibilities.”

Overall, there are many outcomes from COP27, but one of the most significant is the progress made in terms of climate justice. For the first time, there are concrete steps to establishing a loss and damage fund for the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

Yet, there remain many concerns as to the true efficacy of the COP process. As thousands gather from around the world, many of the most powerful decision-makers on privately chartered flights, there remains continued co-optation and repression from the voices most affected by the issue. In contrast, the fossil fuel industry remains one of the most influential delegations, despite their inherent conflict of interest, and they directly impacted the results of COP27. However, given the tumultuous history of the international climate regime and the tangible process that was established in COP27, Sharm el-Sheikh can be largely viewed in a positive light.

Next year, COP28 will be held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates which will present additional challenges beyond those of Egypt. Questions as to the further repression of civil society have already been raised, and discussions about increased accessibility remain to be seen. But after two weeks of hostile negotiations, an agreed-upon Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan that includes a loss and damage fund and has kept the hopes of 1.5°C still alive is a welcomed outcome. 

The post The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan: Climate Justice, Backsliding and Co-optation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While this monumental achievement shows promise in fulfilling the needs of less developed countries, it proves to be most significant for the Pacific Islands, a region at the frontline of the climate crisis. Access to adequate climate finance has been a crucial factor in the region’s ability to combat the effects of climate change but it continues to fall short. According to a report by Oxfam, in 2017-2018, 20.5% of all funding for climate resilience went to Less Developed Countries (LDCs) with only 3% going to small island developing states (SIDS). The two largest global finance mechanisms, the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund, failed to reach the most fragile nations. 

Most disappointingly, however, was the failure of wealthy nations to meet their promise. of providing $100 billion a year to less wealthy countries by 2020 to help them achieve their climate goals. Instead, $83.3 billion in climate financing ended up being allocated by the set deadline, a far cry from the trillions of dollars reportedly necessary to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming. The failure of the $100 billion pledge came from the ambiguous nature of the agreement as negotiators failed to establish how to measure country pledges and no formal deal was made on individual country payments. As a result, nations like the United States, Canada and Australia fell short of what they should have contributed. 

Beyond establishing a fund, delegates have also agreed on having a “transitional committee” which will further operationalize the new funding agreement and establish precise international procedures in raising and distributing that funding. This will hopefully address problems posed by previous financial pledges.  

The fund sets the grounds for a potential reversal of the negative financial slope and while eyes are on all developed nations to demonstrate their commitments, Australia is of particular interest. Ending nine years of conservative rule in May, Anthony Albanese was sworn in as Prime Minister of Australia with ambitious climate goals meant to improve relations with Pacific Island nations that were soured by the inaction of previous leadership. The new parliament’s dedications to climate justice were demonstrated at the Pacific Way Conference in French Polynesia. Foreign Minister Penny Wong stated Australia will allocate some $565 million to the Pacific region to address the “existential threat” of climate change in an effort to regain the trust of the Pacific nations, trust that has diminished over the years. 

The loss and damage fund has opened the floor for the new Australian parliament to fully step up to the task of aiding Pacific Island nations. The success of this fund heavily depends on developed countries’ commitment in making sure the funds get properly allocated to vulnerable countries. In Australia’s case, it is vital that the nation takes on a leading position in the upcoming transitional committee meeting set to occur in March of 2023. At the meeting, Australia, along with other developing countries, must ensure that the eligibility requirements for aid consideration are based on country vulnerability as opposed to income based indicators. The 11 smaller Pacific island countries, including Nauru, Samoa, and the Solomon Islands just to name a few, are all classified as middle-income economies with the exception of the Cook Islands. This has barred them from accessing concessionary finance based on GDP despite being some of the most at risk nations of climate change. In order to adequately finance loss and damage in the pacific islands, Australia must push for the implementation of something like the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index regarding eligibility considerations. This Index will allow donors and financial institutions to address the needs of the pacific nations more effectively as well as allow more countries access to climate finance. 

In establishing the allocations of funds leading up to the first meeting of the transitional committee, Australia must maintain close communication with regional organizations like the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) to ensure the funds reach projects dealing with climate repercussions not addressed by mitigation and adaptation efforts.  

Not only must Australia commit to providing the necessary climate funds, it must also lead by example and make more substantial efforts towards cutting carbon emissions, something it has been criticized heavily for not doing. The Albanese government must take steps to phase out fossil fuel subsidies that have outrageously hit $11.6 billion in 2021-22, a $1.3 billion increase from the previous year. It is necessary that the Albanese government listen to nations like Tuvalu and Vanuatu in their calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and mobilize fossil fuel subsidies towards climate finance so as to regain the trust of the Pacific Island nations. 

In order to corroborate its bid to co-host the 2026 climate conference — COP31 — with Pacific Island Nations, Australia must take this opportunity and fully display its commitments to tackling this climate emergency and shift its stance from a climate laggard to a climate leader. 

The post Climate Finance and the Responsibility of Developed Nations appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.