8 May 2016

The Sustainable Energy Transition: A "Back Of The Envelope" Calculation

Ugo Bardi

Image source. "Back of the Envelope" calculations are a tradition in science and often turn out to be able to provide
plenty of useful information, at the same time avoiding the common pitfall of complex models, that of being able to fit
anything provided that one has enough adjustable parameters.
The world's economy can be seen as a giant heat engine. It consumes energy, mainly in the form of fossil fuels, and uses it to produce services and goods. No matter how fine-tuned and efficient the engine is, it still needs energy to run. So, if we want to do the big switch that we call the "energy transition" from fossil fuels to renewables, we can't rely just on efficiency and on energy saving. We need to feed the big beast with something it can run on, energy produced by renewable sources such as photovoltaics (PV) and wind in the form of electric power.
Here are a few notes on the kind of effort we need in order to move to a completely renewable energy infrastructure before it is too late to avoid the double threat of climate disruption and resource depletion. It is a tall order: we need to do it, basically, in some 50 years from now, possibly less, otherwise it will be too late to avoid a climate disaster. So, let's try a "back of the envelope" calculation that should provide an order of magnitude estimate. For a complete treatment, see this article by Sgouridis et al.
Let's start: first of all, the average power generation worldwide is estimated as around 18 TW in terms of primary energy. Of these, about 81% is the fraction generated by fossil fuels, that is 14.5 TW. This can be taken as the power that we need to replace using renewable sources, assuming to leave everything else as it is.
We need, however, also to take into account that these 14.5 TW are the result of primary energy generation, that is the heat generated by the combustion of these fuels. A lot of this heat is waste heat, whereas renewables (excluding biofuels) directly generate electric power. If we take into account this factor, we could divide the total by a factor of ca. 3. So, we may say that we might be able to keep the engine running with 5 TW of average renewable power. This may be optimistic because a lot of heat generated by fossil fuels is used for indoor heating, but it is based on the idea that civilization needs electricity more than anything else in order to survive. In terms of indoor heating, civilization survives even if we turn down the thermostat, wear a multi-layer of wool, and light up a small wood fire.
Renewable installations are normally described in terms of "capacity", measured in "peak-Watt" (Wp), that is the power that the plant can generate in optimal conditions. That depends on the technologies used. Starting from the NREL data, a reasonable average capacity factor a mix of renewables can be taken as about 20%. So, 5 TW of average power need 25 TWp of installed capacity. We need to take into account many other factors, such as intermittency, which may require storage and/or some spare power, but also better efficiency, demand management, and storage. On the whole, we may say that these requirements cancel each other. So, 25 TWp can be seen as a bare minimum for survival, but still a reasonable order of magnitude estimate. Then, what do we have? The present installed renewable capacity is ca. 1.8 TWp; around 7%. Clearly, we need to grow, and to grow a lot.
Let's see how we have been doing so far. (The values in the figure below appear to exclude large hydropower plants, which anyway have a limited growth potential).
As you can see, we have been increasing the installed power every year. According to Bloomberg, the installed capacity reached about 134 GWp in 2015. If this value is compared with the IRENA data, above, we see that the growth of installations is slowing down. Still, 134 GWp/year is not bad. The renewable energy industry is alive and doing well, worldwide.
Now, let's go to the core of the matter: what do we need to do in order to attain the transition, and to attain it fast enough? (*)
Clearly, 130 GWp/year, is not enough. At this rate, we would need two centuries to arrive at 25 TWp. Actually, we would never get there: assuming an average lifespan of the plants of 30 years, after 30 years we would stabilize around 4 TWp and all the new installations would be used to replace the old plants as they wear out. But we could get to 25 TWp in 30 years if we could reach and maintain an installation rate of 800 GWp per year, about 6 times larger than what we are doing today. (note that this doesn't take into account the need of replacing old plants but, if we assume an average lifetime of 30 years, the calculation remains approximately valid from now to 2050.)
We may not need to reach 100% renewable power by 2050; 80% or even less than that may be enough. In such case, we could make it with something like 500 GWp/year; still a much larger rate than what we are doing today. And if we manage to arrive to - say - even just 50% renewable power by 2050, then we will have created a renewable juggernaut that will lead to 100% in a relatively short time. On the other hand, as I said before, 25 TWp may be optimistic. Therefore, we may need installation rates of the order of at least 1 TWp/year or even more. On the whole, I'd say that 1TWp/year is as good as it can be as an order of magnitude estimate of the energy needed for the survival of civilization as we know it. Approximately a factor of 8 higher than what we have been doing so far.
This back of the envelope calculations arrives at results compatible to those of the more detailed calculations by Sgouridis et al. That study makes more stringent and detailed assumptions, such as the need of increasing the supply of energy for a growing human population, a lower capacity factor, the need of a gradual build-up of the production facilities, the need of oversized capacity to account for intermittency, the energy yield of the plants (*) and more. In the end, it arrives at the conclusion that we need to install at least 5 TWp per year for a successful transition (and, by the way, that, if we do so, we can avoid crossing the 2 degrees C warming threshold). That's certainly more realistic than the present calculation, but let's stay with this scribbled envelope as a minimalistic approach. Let's say that, in order for civilization to survive, we need to install 1 TWp per year, how much would that cost?
Let's see how much we have been spending so far, again from Bloomberg:
Image from Bloomberg Global clean energy investment 2004-15, $bn
As you can see, investments in renewable energy were rapidly increasing up to 2011, then they plateaued with the value for 2015 only marginally higher than it was in 2011. However, if we compare with the previous figure, we see that we have been getting more Watt for the buck. In part, it is because of previously made investments, in part because of the improvements in renewable technologies that have reduced the cost per kWp. But note that technological improvements tend to show diminishing returns. The cost of renewable energy in terms of watt/dollar has gone down so fast and so much that from now on it may be difficult to attain the same kind of radical improvements, barring the development of some new, miracle technology. Take also into account that technological improvement may be offset by the increasing costs of the mineral resources needed for the plants.
We said that we need to increase the installation rate of about a factor of 8 in energy terms. Assuming that the cost of renewable energy won't radically change in the future, we need to increase monetary investments of about the same factor. It means that we need to go from the present value of about 280 billion dollars per year to some 2 trillion dollars/year. This is a lot of money, but not an unthinkable: investment rate. If we sum up what we are investing for fossils (about $1 trillion/year), for renewables ($300 billions/year) and nuclear (perhaps around $200 billions/year) we see that we are not far from there, as we can see in the image below. The total amount yearly invested in the world for energy supply is about 2% of the Gross World Product, today totaling about US$78 trillion.
And there we are. The final result of this exercise is, I think, to frame the transition as a "mind-sized" model (to use a term coined by Seymour Papert). Basically, it turns out that, barring technological miracles, a smooth transition from fossils to renewables is probably impossible; simply because the current way of seeing humankind's problems makes it impossible even to conceive such a massive shift of investments as it would be needed (noting also that investments in renewables have not been significantly increasing from 2011 - that's bad).
This calculation also tells us that it is not unthinkable to advance in the right direction and attain a transition that would allow us to maintain at least some of the features of the present civilization. That is, if we are willing to invest in renewable energy, our destiny is not necessarily that of going back to middle ages or to hunting and gathering (or even to extinction, as it seems to be a fashionable future in certain circles). The transition will be rough, it will be difficult, but it will not necessarily be the Apocalypse. Some kind of transition is unavoidable, anyway: fossil fuels just have no future. But civilization may still have a future: all the investments in renewable energy we can manage to make today for the transition will make the difference for the future. This is a choice that we can still make.
(*) Note: In this simplified calculation, I haven't specified where the energy needed for building the new infrastructure will come from and I haven't used the concept of EROEI (energy return on energy invested). It is taken into account in detail in the calculations by Sgouridis et al in terms of the concept of the "Sower's Strategy", that is assuming that fossil fuels provide the necessary energy during the initial stages of the transition, then they are gradually replaced by renewable energy.

7 May 2016

IWC Masters Scholarships for International Students

International Water Centre
Masters (MS) Degree
Deadline: 1 Aug 2016 (annual)
Study in: Australia
Next course starts Feb 2017



Brief Description:
The IWC Masters Scholarships are prestigious scholarships awarded annually to high calibre candidates who clearly demonstrate potential to become future water leaders to study the IWC Master of Integrated Water Management (MIWM) at The University of Queensland in Australia.
Host Institution(s):
The University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia
Level/Field of study:
No. of  Scholarships:
Up to 3 – 2 for Type A scholarships and 1 for Type B scholarships
Target group:
A – Future water leaders from priority countries in Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Africa and the Middle-East.  One of these scholarships will be reserved and awarded to a female candidate.
B –  Future water leader from selected countries in North America, Europe, or Asia.
Scholarship coverage/inclusion:
A – Each scholarship is valued at approximately AU$ 92,645 and will cover full tuition fees, living costs, return air travel to Australia, student visa and overseas health cover.
B – The scholarship is valued at approximately AU$ 52,500 and will cover full tuition fees.
Eligibility:
To apply for a scholarship, you must have all of the following:
• A completed undergraduate degree in a related field of study from an internationally-recognised institution;
• At least two years of professional experience (paid work or volunteering experience) relevant to the program.
•  International candidates must also demonstrate English Language Proficiency (see UQ’s Policy including minimum scores for IELTS, TOEFL or PTE). A proof of English language proficiency needs to be uploaded with the online application form.
Application instructions:
To apply, you must complete an online application form by 1 August 2016.
It is important to read the IWC Scholarships Terms & Conditions and visit the official website to access the application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.
Website:

2016 NRF-TWAS Doctoral Scholarships / NRF-TWAS African Renaissance Doctoral Scholarships

Application Deadline: 29th of June 2016
Offered annually? No
Eligible Countries: Developing countries and Africa (Africans are ONLY eligible to apply for theNRF-TWAS African Renaissance Doctoral Fellowship)
To be taken at (country): South Africa
Brief description: The National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), in partnership with The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) are offering combined scholarships in the following two(2) categories:
  • NRF – TWAS Doctoral Fellowships
  • NRF – TWAS African Renaissance Doctoral Fellowships
Eligible Fields of Study: Science, Engineering and Technology
About the Award: TWAS has been supporting scientists and institutions in developing countries through a wide range of programmes that focus on scientific capacity building. The core mandate of the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF) is to promote and support research through funding, human resource development and the provision of the necessary facilities in order to facilitate the creation of knowledge, innovation and development in all fields of research. In order to realise this mandate, the NRF has made great commitment and investment towards supporting “next generation” researchers and to intensify and strengthen African and global networks.
The partnership between The NRF and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) has led to the establishment of two Doctoral Scholarships namely; the NRF – TWAS Doctoral Scholarship and the NRF – TWAS African Renaissance Doctoral Scholarship. This award is strategically aimed at increasing and supporting Doctoral scholars from Africa and developing countries who will be funded per annum for a maximum of three (3) years to pursue full-time research training in South Africa. There will be an intake of 70 doctoral scholars each year for three (3) years, starting in 2017.
Offered Since: 2017
Type: Doctoral Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The NRF-TWAS Doctoral Scholarship funding Instrument is open to citizens and permanent residents from developing countries outside Africa
  • The NRF-TWAS African Renaissance Doctoral Scholarship funding instrument is open to citizens and permanent residents from Africa except South Africa
  • No resident of South Africa or citizen of South Africa in any developed country who holds temporary residence permits (this includes study permits) is eligible to apply;
  • Foreign citizens who were previously employed or studying towards a degree or undertaking research in South Africa, and have returned to their country of origin but have been in their country of origin for less than two (2) years are NOT eligible.
  • Applicants must be thirty five (35) years of age on 31 December of the year of application for the doctoral scholarship ;
  • Applicants must hold a university degree that will satisfy requirements for admission to doctoral studies at a South African public university, which is generally a Master’s Degree;
  • Visa and immigration laws of the applicant’s home country and South Africa must be met by the applicant.
  • Application Requirements: Applicants must provide an official letter from their host South African institution, department or laboratory and motivation from the applicant’s host.
  • It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the respective institution to apply for acceptance. In addition, it is also the responsibility of the applicant to secure a supervisor for the study;
  • The research project must be registered and approved by the host institution (a letter of support from the prospective supervisor must be attached to the application;
  • Applicants must have all foreign qualifications (obtained from non-South Africa universities) evaluated by the South African Qualification Authority (SAQA).
  • A SAQA evaluation certificate must be submitted with the application, failing which the application will be rejected.
  • The applicant must secure their own visa’s or study permits under the programme for study in South Africa.

Selection Criteria: 
  • Scholarships may not be held simultaneously with another scholarship from any other TWAS, South African government or NRF administered source;
  • Doctoral scholars may not concurrently hold the scholarship with any full-time employment position;
  • Doctoral scholars can hold non-binding supplementary grants or emoluments to the institutional capped value.
  • Applicant expertise/training that will enable the applicant to successfully undertake the proposed research.
  • The applicant’s research track record which could include peer reviewed publications, conference proceedings, research prizes and awards.
  • Scientific and Technical quality of proposed research Literature review with citations, significance of the research in terms of the problem statement, aims and objectives.
  • Research design, methodology developed to address aims of the research.
  • Alignment with national and institutional research priorities.
  • Institutional support for the postdoctoral fellowship through infrastructure and facilities for an enabling environment.
  • Potential Research Outputs and Impact of the research Details of envisaged realistic outputs of the research such as publications, conference proceedings, toolkits, policy documents.
  • Contribution to postdoctoral research skills development in a priority research area (human capacity development of the applicant)
  • Potential for socio-economic impact of the research in South Africa
Number of Awardees: 
  • NRF – TWAS Doctoral Scholarship funding instrument: 20 scholars from developing countries outside Africa;
  • NRF – TWAS African Renaissance Doctoral Scholarships funding instrument: 50 scholars from Africa.
Value of Scholarship:
  • A single economy airfare to travel from home country to South Africa;
  • A single economy airfare to return to home country upon completion of the doctoral degree.
  • Non-taxable stipend of R110 000 per annum
  • Local travel costs R25 000
  • Maximum international travel costs R50 000
Duration of Scholarship: Up to three (3) years
How to Apply: Applications should be submitted via the NRF Online Submission System. Read further instructions on the Application Process Guides here and here
Award Provider: The World Academy of Sciences, National Research Foundation (NRF) and Department of Science and Technology (DST)
Important Notes: Applicants are advised to complete their applications soon after the call is open to prevent IT system overload nearer the closing date of Friday, 29 July 2016. The NRF will not process applications that are incomplete, contain insufficient or incorrect detail, or fail to comply with instruction as such applications will be rejected. The application must be completed in sufficient detail to allow for a comprehensive review and evaluation by external reviewers. In addition to the electronic application and required attachments, the NRF may request additional information or documentation to support an application if required. Failure to supply such information or documentation upon request may result in the rejection of the application.

Hubert Humphrey Fellowships in USA for International Students

USA GovernmentNon-degree
Deadline: before 1 Oct (annual)
Study in:  USA
Program starts Apr-Sept 2017



Brief description:
The Humphrey Fellowship Program is for experienced professionals interested in strengthening their leadership skills through a mutual exchange of knowledge and understanding about issues of common concern in the U.S. and Fellows’ home countries.
Host Institution(s):
Fellows are placed at one of the participating USA universities. Fellows are not able to choose which university they will attend. Rather, they are assigned in diverse groups of 7-15 to the most appropriate host institution based on their area of interest and professional field.
Level/Field of study:
As a non-degree program, the Fellowship offers valuable opportunities for professional development through selected university courses, attending conferences, networking, and practical work experiences. The eligible program fields are:
• Agricultural and Rural Development
• Communications/Journalism
• Economic Development
• Educational Administration, Planning and Policy
• Finance and Banking
• Higher Education Administration
• HIV/AIDS Policy and Prevention
• Human Resource Management
• Law and Human Rights
• Natural Resources, Environmental Policy, and Climate Change
• Public Health Policy and Management
•  Public Policy Analysis and Public Administration
•  Substance Abuse Education, Treatment and Prevention
•  Teaching of English as a Foreign Language
•  Technology Policy and Management
•  Trafficking in Persons Policy and Prevention
•  Urban and Regional Planning
Number of Awards:
Approximately 200 Fellowships are awarded annually.
Target group:
Scholarship value/inclusions:
The Fellowship provides for:
•  Payment of tuition and fees at the assigned host university;
•  Pre-academic English language training, if required;
•  A maintenance (living) allowance, including a one-time settling-in allowance;
•  Accident and sickness coverage;
•  A book allowance;
•  A one-time computer subsidy;
• Air travel (international travel to and from the U.S. for the program and domestic travel to required program events);
• A Professional Development allowance for professional activities, such as field trips, professional visits and conferences.
Eligibility:
The applicant must have:
•  An undergraduate (first university) degree,
•  A minimum of five years of full-time, professional experience
•  Limited or no prior experience in the United States,
•  Demonstrated leadership qualities,
•  A record of public service in the community, and
•  English language ability
Please contact the U.S. Embassy, Public Affairs Section or Fulbright Commission in your country of residence to learn about possible specific program requirements (link found below).
Application instructions:
Application deadlines vary by country but falls around May to September each year. The nominating U.S. Embassy or Binational Fulbright Commission will advise you of its internal deadline for receiving applications. Embassies and Commissions must submit their nominations to the Institute of International Education office in Washington, DC by 1 October.
Please contact the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy or Bi-national Fulbright Commission in your country for more information about application procedures.
It is important to read the FAQs and visit the official website (link found below) for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.
Website:
Official Scholarship Website:  http://humphreyfellowship.org/

Apply for Zayed Future Energy Prize of US$4 million for Entrepreneurs 2016

Application Deadline: 27 June 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All countries in The Americas, Europe, Africa , Oceania and Asia
To be taken at (country): United Arab Emirates
Brief description: Each year, the Abu Dhabi Government offers the Zayed Future Energy Prize, the total Prize fund of US $4 million for Entrepreneurs to celebrates achievements that reflect impact, innovation, long-term vision and leadership in renewable energy and sustainability
Categories of the Prize: The Zayed Future Energy Prize awards 5 categories:
  • Large Corporation
  • Small and Medium Enterprise (SME)
  • Non-Profit Organisation (NPO/NGO)
  • Lifetime Achievement Award (For an Individual)
  • Global High Schools (1 award for each of the below regions)
    • The Americas, Europe, Africa , Oceania and Asia
About the Award
The Prize fund comes from the Abu Dhabi Government as a way to honour and continue the legacy of the late founding father of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s renewable energy company, manages the Zayed Future Energy Prize. A dedicated team works on the Prize all year round.
This annual award celebrates achievements that reflect impact, innovation, long-term vision and leadership in renewable energy and sustainability. You are invited to be a part of this vision and commitment to finding solutions that will meet the challenges of climate change, energy security and the environment.
Offered Since: 2008
Eligibility: The Zayed Future Energy Prize is open to all entrants other than:  (a) board members and employees of Masdar; and  (b) anyone who has been involved in organising, promoting or judging the Prize.
Selection Criteria: The Prize criteria for all categories are: Innovation, Impact, Leadership and Long-Term Vision.
Number of Awardees: several
Value of Awards: The total Prize fund is US $4 million, distributed as such:

  • Large Corporation – Recognition Award (No monetary value)
  • Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) – US$ 1.5 million
  • Non-Profit Organisation (NPO/NGO) – US$ 1.5 million
  • Lifetime Achievement Award (For an Individual) – US$ 500,000
  • Global High Schools – US$ 500,000 – Total value, divided amongst 5 Global High Schools in 5 different geographic regions, awarding each up to US$ 100,000: The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia
How to Apply
Watch this video tutorial on how to submit an entry and nominate individual to the
2017 Zayed Future Energy Prize.
  • To start a submission, click on Log-in from the application page
  • Register and create an account
  • Answer all the questions in the form. For your convenience, you will be able to save and return to your submission at anytime. If entry is complete, click Submit. If entry is incomplete, click Save.
  • For Nominations, please note that you will not have to register. Nominating a candidate for the Large Corporation or Lifetime Achievement Award will require that you simply fill out the nomination form.
  • There are no fees associated with completing an entry for nominations or submissions. Please also note that nominations and submissions will only be accepted in English.
Download application guideline.
Award Provider: The Abu Dhabi Government
Important Notes: The submission should be sufficiently detailed and clear to enable the judges to analyse properly and to form a view on all elements of the submission and the nominee.

2016 Seedstars World Competition for Startup Entrepreneurs – Up to US$1.5million

Application Deadline: December 31, 2016 (see specific deadline for African cities below)
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Africa, Asia, Latin America, CEE and MENA
To be taken at (country): Switzerland
Brief description: Seedstars World offers exclusive and global startup competition to promote, connect and invest up to $1.5mn for Entrepreneurs in emerging markets in 60 countries
Area of Interest: Entrepreneurship in any field
About the Award
For its fourth edition, Seedstars World will be on the ground in over 65 countries across Asia, Africa, LatAm, CEE and MENA to find the best seed-stage startup. Companies less than two years old, MVP ready, thinking global and with less than $500k raised so far can apply to become the 2016 Global Winner!
Offered Since: Not specified
Selection Criteria:
  • Maximum 2 years since founding date
  • Maximum USD 0.5m funding
  • Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
Selection Process
At each Local Event, the top 10-15 pre-selected startups are invited to pitch in front of an expert jury and quality audience to determine the winner. The event brings together key entrepreneurs, investors, corporates and institutions from the local ecosystem combined with a unique global Seedstars World flavour. The winner of each Local Event gets a free trip to the Final Event and loads of cool tech prizes.
The winner of each Local Event will be invited to Switzerland to represent his startup and country at the global finals. The Final Event is a weeklong adventure consisting of a bootcamp, international conference and investor forum. It’s an amazing chance to meet with investors, build a global network and grow your business.
Number of Awardees: several with on grand winner
Value of Award

  • Equity investment:There is a prize package consisting of USD1mn in equity investment and more in cash and in-kind prizes. You’ll be exposed to VCs, corporates and angels searching for investment opportunities. Maximum USD 0.5m funding
  • Coverage & Prestige:All Seedstars World events are heavily covered by local and international press with around 500 articles on Seedstars last year. Represent your country at the worldwide Seedstars Summit in front of an international audience.
  • Partnerships & Family:Join the close knit Seedstars Family of talented entrepreneurs in 65+ countries. Find potential partners and business opportunities through the community and at the various events.
  • Learn & Grow:We hand pick top-quality mentors from all over the world with experience in relevant industries. Benefit from the knowledge of corporate leaders, serial entrepreneurs, accelerator directors and investors.
Duration of Scholarship: 2 days for the Local Event + 7 days if you are selected for the Seedstars Summit (includes: online application, preparing for pitching event, coaching, traveling and attending the events).
Application deadline: Go to Seedstars website below to see specific deadline for each African city
How to Apply
  • Step 1: Make sure you have a venture profile published on VC4Africa platform with your most recent pitch deck attached.
  • Step 2: Apply to one of the 15 local events in Africa through the online form.
Award Provider: Seedstars World
Important Notes: You must be prepared to talk about your startup in public. Pitch and application documents must be in English or you must provide a translator. Your startup can be from any sector but must be for profit.

Why Obama Prioritizes Ousting Assad Over Defeating Syria’s Jihadists

Eric Zuesse

Dr. Christina Lin, a leading young scholar on jihadist groups, opened her April 8th commentary at Asia Times:
In a blunder reeking of the fallout caused by supplying Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to 1980s mujahideen in Afghanistan, civilian airline passengers are now under threat from Syrian jihadists armed with portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS).
Reports say some American-backed jihadi groups are being equipped with US-made MANPADS. Indications are they’re obtaining these advanced weapons either directly or indirectly from the US or its Mideast allies in connection with a recent escalation in the fighting in Syria.
On April 2, fighting broke out between western-backed al-Qaeda affiliates and the Syrian army, ending the Syrian ceasefire. The groups that broke the ceasefire included al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra), the Chinese Uyghur Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), The Levant Brigade, the Freemen of Syria (Ahrar al-Sham), Division 13, and other jihadi groups. According to AP, the US-trained and armed Division 13 is now fighting alongside al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The latter two are part of the Turkey/Saudi/Qatar-backed Army of Conquest.[1]
That report went on to document, essentially, that U.S. President Barack Obama is continuing his efforts to replace the the only secular, non-sectarian government in the Middle East, that of the Ba’athist Party, which has always been the only non-religious political party in the Arabic world — everything else in Arabia has been fundamentalist-Sunni, to at least some extent (enough for even the least-fundamentalist of America’s Arab allies to cooperate with al-Nusra, which is Al Qaeda in Syria). Nusra has also received direct support from America and its allies, through Turkey, which is a member-nation of NATO and serves as the transit-route into Syria for the thousands of jihadists (all of whom are Sunni) flowing into Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad. Those jihadists, in turn, are the forces on the ground in Syria that are trying to take over the country — bring down the secular Shiite Assad and replace his Ba’athist government (which is allied with Russia), by a Sunni Shariah-law government (allied with Saudi Arabia). (Think of it: after 9/11, the U.S. government is aiding Al Qaeda! The U.S. government is more against Russia than it’s against jihadists — though Russia never invaded the U.S., and communism is gone! Crazy but true.)
Dr. Lin quotes a Saudi official as saying (in Germany’s Spiegel), “We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria is going to change the balance of power on the ground … just like surface-to-air missiles in Afghanistan were able to change the balance of power there.” He was referring to this in 1979, where Obama’s friend Zbigniew Brzezinski explained why the Americans and the Saudis were supplying SAMs to the mujahideen who became Al Qaeda, and he was also referring to this in 1998, where Brzezinski, when asked whether he thought that arming those fundamentalist Sunnis had been a mistake, said that it certainly was not. Obama is continuing in that (rabidly anti-Russian) vein. Brzezinski still was talking there as if Russia = USSR = “the enemy.” Obama acts from that same viewpoint — the viewpoint that will end either in WW III, or else in Russia’s capitulation to the U.S. aristocracy.
In their view, the end of communism, and the end of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Soviets’ Warsaw Pact (which was the Soviets’ counterpart to America’s NATO alliance), made and make no difference, and Syria should be ruled by jihadist groups instead of by its current government, because Syria’s current government is allied with Russia, and Russia always tries to kill jihadists, never allies with them (as the U.S. does).
Obama overthrew the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine and replaced it with an anti-Russian government; he also led the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Russia-friendly leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi; and he has since been trying to do the same thing in Syria, to Assad.
Dr. Lin continues:
Now, if it turns out that al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria are indeed armed with MANPADS, it would amount to what former CIA director David Petraeus called “our worst nightmare.” The missile would do far more than improve terrorist groups’ military capabilities to conduct future attacks.
A 2005 RAND study also concluded that jihadis shooting down a civilian airliner would put a temporary freeze on worldwide air travel, causing a $15 billion loss to the world economy.[8] More than a decade after this study, the present-day economic loss would be substantially higher than $15 billion.
Dr. Lin’s calling this from Obama a “blunder” is based upon an assumption that Obama isn’t aware of the harms that he’s causing by what he’s doing; but, on the same day, a report, including shocking documentation from Jane’s (the specialist site about military matters), made clear that Obama is determined to overthrow Assad no matter what the consequences.
The anonymous “Moon of Alabama” blogger posted at Global Research on April 8th, “U.S. Delivers 3,000 Tons Of Weapons And Ammo To Al-Qaeda and Co. in Syria.” Shown there is the “Simplified packing list for December 2015 arms” that were sent. The anonymous blogger explained:
One ship with nearly one thousand tons of weapons and ammo left Constanta in Romania on December 5. The weapons are from Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania. It sailed to Agalar in Turkey which has a military pier and then to Aqaba in Jordan. Another ship with more than two-thousand tons of weapons and ammo left in late March, followed the same route and was last recorded on its way to Aqaba on April 4.
We already knew that the “rebels” in Syria received plenty of weapons during the official ceasefire. We also know that these “rebels” regularly deliver half of their weapon hauls from Turkey and Jordan to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra):
Hard-core Islamists in the Nusra Front have long outgunned the more secular, nationalist, Western-supported rebels. According to FSA officers, Nusra routinely harvests up to half the weapons supplied by the Friends of Syria, a collection of countries opposed to Assad, ..
U.S. and Turkey supported “rebels” took part in the recent attack on Tal al-Eis against Syrian government forces which was launched with three suicide bombs by al-Qaeda in Syria. This was an indisputable breaking of the ceasefire agreement between Russia and the U.S. It is very likely that some of the weapons and ammunition the U.S. delivered in December were used in this attack.
Consequently, Obama is clearly determined to supply weapons to the jihadists until they win. This is no “blunder” on his part. It’s a determination to beat Putin, no matter what. It has consequences not only for the U.S. and for Russia, but for the countries that America invades or whose governments America overthrows. Here are those consequences:
The “2016 Global Emotions Report” by Gallup, surveying over a thousand people in each one of 140 different nations, found that, by far, the people in Syria had “the lowest positive experiences worldwide,” the people there were far more miserable than in any other nation. The score was 36 (on a scale to 100). Second and third worst were tied at 51: Turkey because of the tightening dictatorship there as Turkey has become one of Obama’s key allies in toppling Assad; Nepal, on account of the earthquake. Then tied at 54, were three countries, the fourth, fifth, and sixth, most-miserable places to live: Georgia, which still hasn’t recovered from the U.S.-backed wars against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where the majority want to be part of Russia; Serbia, where the majority are opposed to the government’s move to enter NATO; and Iraq, which still hasn’t recovered from Bush’s 2003 invasion. Then tied at 55, are five countries, the seventh-through-eleventh-most-miserable nations: Yemen, where America’s ally the Sauds are dropping American bombs onto Shiite neighborhoods; Bosnia and Herzegovina, which still hasn’t recovered from the civil war and the U.S. bombing; Lithuania, which became impoverished by IMF-imposition of economic austerity, which has prevented economic recovery; Belarus, which will probably be the last country in the world to break away from Marxism; and, finally, the 11th-worst, Ukraine, which prior to the U.S. coup, was less miserable than 29 countries and had a score of 60, which was 5 points higher than today’s — Obama’s coup there has definitely immiserated the Ukrainian people (not to mention displaced millions and slaughtered thousands by the ethnic-cleansing campaign against residents of the former Donbass region of Ukraine).
To what extent would it be sincere, or even honest, then, for the U.S. President to say this?:
America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future. … In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine. And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.
Those “armed militias in ski masks,” incidentally, were U.S.-CIA-hired mercenaries. He had to know that; he simply lied.
In the U.S. Presidential contest this year, the big foreign-affairs issue that separates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on one side, and all of the other candidates on the other, is whether to prioritize killing jihadists, above defeating Assad and any other ally of Russia. Both Sanders and Trump say that killing jihadists is definitely the top priority. Hillary Clinton and the other Republicans say that both priorities are equal and must be pursued with equal vigor, even though that will mean helping the jihadists whenever they’re causing damage to Russia or to Russia’s allies — such as to Assad in Syria. Judging Obama by his actions not his (lying) words, he’s on the side of Clinton and the other (the self-acknowledged) Republicans. The reality is that anyone (such as Clinton, Cruz, and Kasich) who says that both priorities are equal, is really in favor of placing the defeat of Russia as being a higher priority than killing jihadists — but for political reasons can’t afford to admit it publicly. Those candidates are actually the candidates who (like the Bushes and the Clintons) represent the Saud family, who financed Al Qaeda before 9/11, and who continued doing it after 9/11, and whose friends the other Arabic royal families, are financing the other jihadist organizations.
On the one side in this ongoing international war are Russia and its few allies, which include the Shiites, both the secular Assad in Syria, and the fundamentalist Khamenei in Iran; and, on the other side are the United States and its many allies, which include the fundamentalist Sunni royal families, which own Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, but which also include the fundamentalist Sunni, Tayyip Erdogan, in Turkey, who is the Saud family’s agent in the U.S.-led NATO anti-Russian military club. And, of course, NATO and Japan are also on the American team. And so is Israel.
This is geopolitics, the contest for power between the two blocs of aristocracies — the U.S.-Saudi-led bloc on the one side, versus the much smaller Russia-led bloc on the other.
Here is how Brzezinski put it, on page 46 of his classic 1997 statement of the position of the U.S.-Saudi-led bloc, in his book The Grand Chessboard, where he was discussing specifically Ukraine, and also explaining why the West must support the fundamentalist Sunni, or jihadist, groups that threaten to break up and thus weaken or destroy Russia:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. … However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.
Brzezinski was born a Polish nobleman, to a family who were dispossessed by Russians, and he never lost his hatred of Russians. In 1973, he and his friend David Rockefeller (like the Arabic royals a hereditary oil-billionaire) founded the Trilateral Commission, to coordinate America and Europe and Japan, so as to conquer Russia by breaking it up — classic divide-and-conquer aristocratic thinking. That’s what his Grand Chessboard is all about: conquest, for global dominance. To understand not only Obama but the Bushes, and the Clintons, that book is the classic. And the reason why the American aristocracy loathes both Sanders and Trump — different though those two candidates are — is that both candidates present the first possibility since the end of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact in 1991 to end the purely aristocratic war that has continued on since then (with the public financing it via their taxes, and providing the corpses for it in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and a few other places) to conquer Russia.
Obama is an extraordinarily gifted politician, notwithstanding any deficiencies he has as a national leader, and so here was from his brief exchange (and there was no follow-up on this question) dealing with his biggest achievement and his biggest error as President, speaking with Chris Wallace of Fox News and telecast on April 10th:
WALLACE: Worst mistake?
OBAMA: Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.
But, even without any follow-up question, that actually says a lot: it says that, though Obama didn’t even “plan for the day after” (a shocking admission, which really shows the abysmal caliber of the man), his bombing Libya till Muammar Gaddafi was killed “was the right thing to do.” (George W. Bush feels the same about his having gotten rid of another Russia-ally, Saddam Hussein.) And, of course, the unasked question there was: Why? Why was it “the right thing to do”? But, if his foreign policy is driven obsessively by the goal of taking down the leader of any nation who is friendly toward Russia, then it does make sense, after all — the same sense as what Obama also did to Yanukovych in Ukraine, and is still so persistently trying to do to Assad in Syria. (And Chris Wallace’s having not even noticed that he had, just then, elicited from Obama the most shocking statement in Obama’s entire Presidency, showed that that TV network of psychopaths was functioning true-to-form — the interviewer didn’t even care that the U.S. President had perpetrated a huge bombing campaign without even concerning himself about what the consequences would be — other than to get rid of a leader who was friendly to Russia, which Obama wouldn’t have admitted as his goal, even if it was true.)
And, as regards America’s future international relations, the continuance (or not) of this psychopathic goal, is the top issue in the current U.S. Presidential campaign. Whereas the American public don’t even think much about it, America’s billionaires certainly do, which is why they’re pouring billions into the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and the other candidates who want to continue that goal (taking control of Russia), but with even more intensity than Obama has been doing.
Properly understood, history isn’t only about the past; it is, far more importantly, about the future. That’s why the aristocracy don’t finance the careers of truthful historians: the public are supposed to believe the myths, which have been shaped by the aristocracy in the past. Truthful history would endanger the aristocracy. And that’s why the public aren’t supposed to know such things as, “Why Obama Prioritizes Ousting Assad Over Defeating Syria’s Jihadists,” nor even to know that he does. But, he does; and here has been provided an explanation as to why he does (and understanding why, will pose an even greater threat to the aristocracy — which is why few media will publish this).
The con isn’t supposed to be known; or, if it’s known, it’s not supposed to be noticed.
OBAMA: Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.
And that’s also the reason “Why Obama Prioritizes Ousting Assad Over Defeating Syria’s Jihadists.” He says: doing it in Libya was his “worst mistake.” But he cares so little, that he’s trying to do it again, in Syria. He’s true-to-form, for a psychopath.
And this answers the question, as well as it can be answered. It’s not a matter of corpses, and bloodshed, and immiserated nations, to him; it’s “The Grand Chessboard.” He simply wants to be the person at the mountaintop, even if it’s a mountain of corpses. Or, maybe, especially if it’s a mountain of corpses. This has been the way of aristocracies for thousands of years, and he’s a natural at it. Just a natural. Especially since the CIA has been aiming since at least 1957 to overthrow the Ba’ath Party as Syria’s leadership, and to replace them with a partitioned Syria, whose key oil-and-gas pipeline route would be controlled by a fundamentalist-Sunni ally of the Sauds.
After all, the Grand Chessboard may be just a game, but it can be a very profitable one, for the right people.