5 Feb 2017

US defence secretary threatens North Korea with “overwhelming” force

Peter Symonds

US Defence Secretary James Mattis, who is currently touring North East Asia, warned North Korea yesterday that any attack on the United States and its allies would be defeated. And any use of nuclear weapons would be met with an “effective and overwhelming” response.
This bellicose threat only has one meaning: the obliteration of the North Korea’s regime, as well as its military, industry and infrastructure, with the loss of countless lives. It is a message that is aimed not only at North Korea, but also China, Pyongyang’s only ally and economic lifeline.
In the first instance, Mattis’s comments were aimed at reassuring South Korea and Japan. During last year’s presidential election campaign, President Trump threatened to walk away from the US alliances with Japan and South Korea if they did not pay a far greater share of the costs of the extensive American military bases in their countries.
On his flight to South Korea, Mattis declared that the alliance between the two countries as “enduring.” He met with South Korea’s acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn on Thursday and pledged that the US intended to stand “shoulder to shoulder” against any North Korean threat. After meeting with the US defence secretary on Friday, South Korean Defence Minister Han Mikoo welcomed Mattis’s threat to North Korea as evidence of the allies’ close military cooperation.
For all the public reassurances, Mattis is likely to have discussed South Korea paying a greater share of the ongoing costs and restructuring of US military bases. The Pentagon has been engaged in a major reorganisation of its presence in South Korea as part of the Obama administration’s military build-up throughout the region in preparation for war with China. The US has some 28,500 military personnel in the country.
Mattis’s immediate priority was to secure the deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) battery to South Korea. The South Korean government, under pressure from the Obama administration, agreed last year to install the sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system despite widespread local opposition.
Mattis repeated the claim that the THAAD battery in South Korea, part of an extensive and growing anti-missile system in Asia, is aimed against North Korea. “If it were not for the provocative behaviour of North Korea, we would have no need for THAAD out here,” he said.
The prime target of the US anti-missile network is not North Korea, but China, which has protested against the planned THAAD installation in South Korea. The THAAD system, which is capable of shooting down nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, is not primarily for defence, but to neutralise China’s ability to retaliate in the event of a US first nuclear strike.
Mattis and his South Korean counterpart announced that the THAAD system would be deployed by the end of 2017. The South Korean government, however, is mired in political crisis after the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. Her future is now in the hands of the Constitutional Court. If she is removed from office, a fresh presidential election will be held.
South Korean opposition parties have no opposition in principle to the THAAD deployment but are seeking to capitalise on mounting public opposition. The Los Angeles Times reported: “A large group gathered in a central square [in Seoul] Thursday to protest Mattis’ arrival. One held a sign that read, ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis—Not Welcome in Korea. More protesters were expected Friday.”
“Mad Dog” Mattis is a former Marine general and head of US Central Command notorious for his murderous language and methods in the Middle East. The fact that he chose to make his first overseas trip as defence secretary to North East Asia is another sign that the Trump administration has put a confrontation with China at the top of its agenda.
Trump’s threats of trade war measures against have gone hand-in-hand with bellicose statements on China’s activities in the South China Sea and North Korea. Trump has repeatedly accused Beijing of failing to use its economic muscle to force Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear weapons and programs.
Trump responded last month to North Korea's claims that it was preparing to test an intercontinental ballistic missile by flatly declaring that it “won’t happen.” While he gave no indication how the US would prevent such a test, the implication was that the North Korean missile would either be destroyed on the ground or shot out of the sky by an anti-missile system.
Trump’s belligerent comments toward North Korea coincide with a debate in US foreign policy and military circles over the danger that Pyongyang will soon have nuclear-armed missiles. Patrick Cronin, from the Centre for a New American Security, for instance told the Washington Post that North Korea was “on the cusp of being able to demonstrate and deploy all the sinews of a nuclear-weapon state.”
Prior to Mattis’s trip, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford spoke by phone with his South Korean counterpart to discuss the “acute security situation” posed by North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. The two reaffirmed the strong commitment of the two countries to building up a joint defence posture.
Under the Obama administration, the US and South Korean militaries agreed to new joint operational plans—OPLAN 5015—that shifted from a defensive posture in the event of a war with North Korea to an offensive one, including pre-emptive strikes on North Korean missiles and nuclear weapons, and “decapitation” raids on the Pyongyang regime.
In an article this week in the Joint Forces Quarterly, Dunford indicated that any war with North Korea would not be limited to the Korean Peninsula. “Today, North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile, cyber, and space capabilities could quickly threaten the homeland and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region,” he wrote.
“Deterring and, if necessary, defeating a threat from North Korea requires the Joint Force to be capable of nearly instant integration across regions, domains and functions,” Dunford stated.
These comments make clear that the Pentagon is preparing for a conflict that would rapidly draw other powers, including China—a new world war that would range across the world and into outer space.
Mattis left South Korea last night for further talks in Japan over the weekend.

Trump issues orders to roll back bank regulations

Barry Grey 

President Donald Trump signed executive directives on Friday initiating a sweeping rollback of regulations on banks and financial brokers enacted under the Obama administration following the Wall Street crash of 2008.
Trump’s actions target in particular the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulations and a Labor Department rule set to take effect in April requiring financial advisers to put the interests of retired clients before their own monetary rewards.
The billionaire president seemed to flaunt his promotion of Wall Street’s interests, signing the two measures after meeting in the White House with his business council. The council is chaired by Stephen A. Schwarzman, the multi-billionaire chief executive of the private equity giant Blackstone Group.
Among the dozen or so corporate executives in attendance were Jamie Dimon, another billionaire, who heads JPMorgan Chase, the largest US bank, and Laurence D. Fink, the mega-millionaire chief of the investment firm BlackRock.
“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can’t borrow money,” Trump said during his meeting with the corporate bosses. He praised Dimon, who has bitterly campaigned against the Dodd-Frank law. JP Morgan Chase was fined billions of dollars in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis for multiple violations of bank regulations and laws, including fraudulent sub-prime mortgage deals that contributed to the collapse of the US housing market in 2007. A frequent visitor to the Obama White House, Dimon was for a time known as “Obama’s favorite banker.”
“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie,” Trump declared.
Trump also had high praise for Fink, touting BlackRock’s management of Trump money for earning “great returns.”
Nothing could more clearly expose the farce of Trump’s pretensions to be a champion of the American worker.
Wall Street celebrated the attack on financial regulations with a stock buying spree focused on bank and financial shares. The biggest winners were JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Visa on a day that saw the Dow surge 186 points to recoup recent losses. It closed once again above the 20,000 mark, ending at 20,071. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq indexes also recorded big gains, with the Nasdaq ending the trading session in record territory.
Trump’s assault on bank regulations is of a piece with his moves to gut all legal and regulatory restrictions on corporate profit-making. Since taking office two weeks ago, he has signed executive orders mandating the lifting of regulations across the board, removed obstacles to the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access oil pipelines, and picked long-time opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency, occupational health and safety rules, and limitations on industrial and mining pollution to head the federal agencies tasked with overseeing these activities.
The White House economic program—including sharp tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, an infrastructure program that amounts to a tax windfall for private investors, a hiring freeze for federal workers, and historic cuts in social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security—is the fulfillment of the wish list of America’s financial oligarchy.
Trump and his aides have denounced the 2010 Dodd-Frank law as a “disaster” and an “overreach” of government authority, and they have questioned its constitutionality. In fact, it is a largely token measure passed mainly to provide political cover for Obama’s multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and the financial elite.
Under Obama, not a single leading banker was prosecuted for the criminal activities that led to the biggest financial disaster and deepest slump since the 1930s, destroying the jobs, life savings and living standards of tens of millions of workers in the US and around the world.
Despite the minimal restraints imposed by Dodd-Frank, during the Obama years bank profits soared, the wealth of the richest 400 Americans increased from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion, the Dow rose by 148 percent, and the concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the top 10 percent, and above all the top 1 percent and 0.01 percent, reached historically unprecedented levels.
But the financial oligarchy, whose grip on the country increased under Obama, will brook not even minor limitations on its “right” to plunder the American and world economy. The Obama years paved the way for the emergence, in the Trump administration, of a government that embodies the oligarchy not only in its policies, but also in its personnel, beginning with the billionaire real estate speculator and reality TV star at its head.
Besides Trump, at least three multi-billionaires will occupy high posts in the administration, including Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos and Carl Icahn. Mega-millionaires will include Stephen Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, Andrew Puzder, Elaine Chao and Gary Cohn, who gave up his number two post as president of Goldman Sachs to become the director of Trump’s National Economic Council.
Overseeing Wall Street as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission will be the longtime lawyer for Goldman Sachs, Jay Clayton. In addition to Cohn, other Goldman alumni include Mnuchin and Trump’s top political adviser, Stephen Bannon.
On Friday, Cohn told Bloomberg Television, “We’re going to attack all aspects of Dodd-Frank.” He absurdly accused the law of “shackling” US banks.
The White House could do “quite a bit” on its own, he said, while making clear that the administration would work with the Republican-dominated Congress to finish the job of ripping up bank regulations. House Republicans are preparing to put forward a bill to replace Dodd-Frank in the coming weeks.
Cohn singled out two provisions of the Dodd-Frank law for particular attack. The first is the so-called Volcker Rule, which restricts the ability of federally insured banks to make financial bets on their own behalf, in what is known as “proprietary trading.” Such gambling, including with depositors’ money, played a major role in the collapse of the banking system in 2008. Wall Street banks, led by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, have pushed relentlessly for the elimination of this provision.
The second provision is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a largely toothless body under the aegis of the Federal Reserve Board that is tasked with shielding the public from the depredations of the banks, credit card companies and other financial firms. Cohn indicated that the White House might demand the resignation of its director, Richard Cordray, as the first step in the bureau’s evisceration or outright elimination. “Personnel is policy,” he said.
The second action Trump signed was a memorandum instructing the labor secretary to delay implementation of the rule banning financial advisers and brokers from recommending to their retired clients more expensive investments for the purpose of generating greater returns to the advisers. A 2015 report from the Obama administration concluded that “conflicted advice” costs retirement savers $17 billion a year.
Even as Trump was issuing his executive directives on Friday, Senate Republicans were voting to repeal a rule linked to Dodd-Frank that requires oil companies to publicly disclose payments they make to governments in connection with their business operations around the world. Among those who lobbied against the Securities and Exchange rule was the new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, in his capacity as CEO of Exxon Mobil.
This amnesty for corporate bribery and criminality reveals the essence of the Trump administration’s scorched earth campaign against business regulations.
The Democrats will do nothing to oppose these policies. Their opposition to Trump is focused on differences over US imperialist foreign policy, not opposition to his assault on the democratic and social rights of working people.
But workers looking for an alternative to the political establishment who may have entertained hopes in Trump’s promises to restore decent-paying jobs will be rapidly disabused. The realization that they have once again been conned will have socially explosive consequences.

3 Feb 2017

Atlas Corps Fellowship for Young Leaders in Non-Profit 2017

Application Deadline: 15th March, 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Various host countries
About the Award: Atlas Corps is an overseas fellowship for the world’s best nonprofit leaders. Our mission is to address critical social issues by developing leaders, strengthening organizations, and promoting innovation through an overseas fellowship of skilled nonprofit professionals. The Atlas Corps Fellowship typically lasts 12-18 months. (For those serving in the United States, opportunities start in January, May, September.) Fellows serve full-time at Host Organizations, develop leadership skills, and learn nonprofit best practices through the Atlas Corps Global Leadership Lab professional development series and networking opportunities with other Fellows who are skilled nonprofit professionals from around the world. This prestigious fellowship includes health insurance, enrollment in Atlas Corps Global Leadership Lab, flight and visa costs, and a living stipend to cover basic expenses (food, local transportation, and shared housing).
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Two or more years of relevant experience
  • Bachelor’s degree or equivalent
  • English proficiency (oral, writing, reading)
  • Age 35 or younger
  • Apply to serve in a country other than where you are from (U.S. citizens are not eligible for the U.S. Fellowship)
  • Commitment to return to your home country after the 12-18 month Fellowship
  • Commitment to living on a basic stipend that only covers food, shared housing, and local transportation
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: This fellowship includes health insurance, enrollment in Atlas Corps Global Leadership Lab, flight and visa costs, and a living stipend to cover basic expenses (food, local transportation, and shared housing).
Duration of Fellowship: 12-18 months
How to Apply: Apply via the Fellowship Webpage
Award Provider: Atlas Corps

Coimbra Group Scholarship Programme for Young African Researchers 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (Country): The following Coimbra Group universities are participating in the 2017 edition of the scheme:
  • University of Barcelona (Spain)
  • Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (Hungary)
  • University of Granada (Spain)
  • University of Graz (Austria)
  • University of Groningen (The Netherlands)
  • Jagiellonian University of Krakow (Poland)
  • KU Leuven (Belgium)
  • University of Padova (Italy)
  • University of Pavia (Italy)
  • University of Poitiers (France)
  • University of Salamanca (Spain)
About the Award: Universities of the Coimbra Group offer short-term visits (generally 1 to maximum 3 months) to young African researchers from higher education institutions from Sub-Saharan Africa. The main aim of this scholarship programme is to enable scholars to undertake research in which they are engaged in their home institution and to help them to establish academic and research contacts. The scholarships are financially supported by the Coimbra Group member universities participating in this programme, while the Coimbra Group Office is in charge of the administrative management of the applications.

Type: Research
Eligibility: Applicants should be:
  • under the age of 45
  • nationals of and current residents in a country in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • current staff members of a university or an equivalent higher education institution in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • of doctoral/postdoctoral or equivalent status.
Female candidates are encouraged to apply and will be prioritised.
Selection: The administrative check of applications will be undertaken by the Coimbra Group Office in order to select candidates who meet the eligibility criteria. The selection of candidates will be undertaken by the host universities. When selection has been agreed upon, the host university may send a letter of invitation directly to the successful candidate. The Coimbra Group Office will contact all candidates and inform them about the result of their application. Successful candidates currently employed by a University are responsible for ensuring that their home institution will grant them leave of absence to undertake the proposed visit.
Number of Awardees: Limited
Value of Scholarship: Successful candidates will have access to excellent academic knowledge in quality facilities. The scholarships include financial support for tuition, living costs, airfares etc.
Duration of Scholarship: From 1 to maximum 3 months. The dates of candidate’s stay should be agreed upon between the candidate and the academic supervisor at the Coimbra Group University. Typically this will be during the academic year 2017/2018.
Award Provider: Coimbra Group
Important Notes: Candidates will be able to select one university only. Multiple applications will not be considered valid.

Nordic Africa Institute Guest Researchers’ Scholarship Program 2017. Fully-funded to Uppsala, Sweden

Application Deadline: 1st April 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): Uppsala, Sweden
About the Award: The purpose of the Guest Researchers’ Scholarship Programme is to provide opportunities for postdoctoral researchers in Africa to pursue their own research projects, thereby indirectly strengthening the academic milieux in African countries. The scholarship offers access to the Institute’s library and other resources that provide for a stimulating research environment. Through the programme, the Nordic Africa Institute can establish and maintain relations with and between African and Nordic research communities.
Type: Research
Eligibility: The scholarship programme is directed at postdoctoral researchers based in Africa and engaged in Africa-oriented research within the discipline of Social Sciences and Humanities. The applicant should be affiliated to an African university/research center and have a proven track record of extensive research experience.
The Institute strives to achieve a fair distribution of scholarship positions in regards to gender and geographic focus.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship includes a return air-fare (economy class), accommodation, a subsistence allowance of 300 SEK (approx. 34 USD) per day plus an installation grant of 2,500 SEK (approx. 280 USD) and access to a computer in a shared office at NAI.
The Institute’s library is specialized in literature on contemporary Africa and focuses on Social Sciences. Guest Researchers also have access to the Uppsala University Library, including their online resources, and to the Library of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Guest Researchers have the possibility to present their research at the Nordic Africa Institute and to visit other institutions in the Nordic countries.
Duration of Scholarship: The maximum duration of the stay is 90 days, minimum is 60 days.
  • Application form
  • Up-to-date CV, including list of publications (if available online, please include links)
  • Outline of research project, 5 pages:
    – A well elaborated research proposal; the research topic must relate to the research themes of the Institute
    – A work plan, including expected results, specific for the time spent at the Institute
  • Reference: A signed letter of support from the applicant’s Head of Department or other senior scholar in the same field, which confirms current affiliation and field of research. (Scanned versions of signed support letters can be emailed by the applicant.)
Applications can be sent by post/airmail or by email. Applications sent by post/airmail should contain 2 copies of each document. Applications sent by email should contain only 1 copy of each document.
Applications sent by post/airmail should be addressed to
The Nordic Africa Institute
Marie Karlsson
P.O. Box 1703
SE-751 47 Uppsala, Sweden.
Applications sent by email should be addressed to
Marie Karlsson, Research Administrator, email: marie.karlsson@nai.uu.se
Please note: On the subject line of your email, write: “Application: Guest Researchers’ Scholarship Programme”. Scanned versions of signed support letters can also be sent to the above email address.
Award Provider: Nordic Africa Institute
Important Notes:  Please note that the subsistence allowance will be provided only for the days spent in Uppsala. Also note that most academic institutions in the Nordic countries, including the Nordic Africa Institute, are closed or at least running at a reduced capacity during the periods 15 June–15 August and 15 December–15 January. Applicants are thus asked not to choose these periods for their visit.

IBM Great Minds Student Internships 2017 for African Students. Pitch your vision and win an internship

Application Deadline: 20th February 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries, central and eastern Europe, the Middle Eastern countries
To be taken at (country): Zurich, Dublin, Nairobi and Johannesburg
Field of Study: The program is open to all full-time students enrolled in a Master’s program in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Software Engineering, Industrial Engineering or Service Science at a recognized university or college in central and eastern Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
Type: Internship
Eligibility:
  • The students must have a solid command of the English language in both written and spoken form.
  • IBM is an equal-opportunity employer and encourages applications from both genders as well as minority groups.
  • We would especially like to encourage qualified women to participate in this competition.
Value of Internship: IBM will pay the winners a lump sum towards travel expenses as well as compensation that covers adequately the cost of living in Switzerland, Ireland, Kenya or South Africa, respectively. IBM will also obtain the necessary visa and work permits for the successful candidates.
Duration of Internship: 3 – 6 months. The internships will take place in 2017. The exact starting time and duration will be agreed upon with the winning students individually, taking into account their academic commitments and the availability of IBM staff.
How to Apply: Participants must be nominated by a faculty member. A recommendation letter from a faculty member is mandatory.
To participate in the Great Minds competition, see the detailed instructions for students in the link below.
Award Provider: IBM

All the Government Men are Smiling: the Political Climate in Puerto Rico

GUILLERMO R. GIL

A labor reform was signed into law last week in Puerto Rico.
The signing, for media purposes, was held at a locally owned laundromat in the gentrified Santurce sector of the capital.
Thanks to the labor reform, the owner of the laundromat hopes to be able to create “2 or 3 jobs.”
Thanks to the labor reform, new workers will be subjected to longer probationary periods and will have to work more hours per month in order to classify for sick leave and (less) vacation time.
In the picture, all the government men are smiling.
The present governmental administration boasts of having 40% of its cabinet seats filled by women.
In order to be confirmed by the Senate as Education Secretary, Julia Keleher had to swear to be against dual gender bathrooms and a gender responsive curriculum in public schools.
In one of her first actions as Police Superintendent, former Army Colonel Michelle M. Hernández de Fraley decreed a gag order for the entire police force, thus impinging on people’s access to information. This was later overturned.
In response to questions regarding what Trump’s administration might mean for the socio-political conditions of life on the island, Puerto Rico’s non-voting representative in US Congress, Jennifer González, stated that she’s hopeful about what the island might get.
Under Trump, the administration hopes to get the opportunity to negotiate the terms for Puerto Rico’s statehood.
The administration, it appears, is oblivious to the terms of what now constitutes an ‘American’ under Trump.
What now constitutes a ‘good job’ in Puerto Rico depends on whether you ask the owner of the laundromat or the 2-3 people he might be able to hire with less rights and benefits.
In the picture, all the government men are smiling. There are no workers present.
Do the people who work at the highest levels of government classify as workers?
Do the people who are willing to negotiate statehood for Puerto Rico under Trump accept the socio-political implications of Americanness under Trump?
At this time, the people in government are unable to state how many new jobs will be created under the terms of the labor reform. They only emphasize that the labor reform makes for a better climate of negotiation.
At this time, the climate in Puerto Rico is somewhat hot and humid.
In the picture, if you look closely, all the government men are trying really hard not to sweat.

Our Plastic Oceans

Yves Engler

For 21st century capitalism the more disposable the better. Ocean life and human health be damned.
According to a recent Ellen MacArthur Foundation study, the world’s oceans are set to have more plastic than fish by 2050. At the current rate of production and disposal the net weight of plastic in the oceans will be greater than that of fish in a little over three decades.
There are currently 150 million tonnes of plastic debris floating in the world’s oceans. Most of it takes centuries to break down. Thousands of large animals – such as turtles and birds – die every year from indigestible plastic debris in the ocean. Millions of other sea creatures suffer when they consume plastic.
The Canada-US Great Lakes – the largest freshwater ecosystem in the world – have also accumulated large amounts of plastic. A study released in December concluded that almost 22 million pounds of plastic debris are dumped into the Great Lakes annually. Microplastics in the lakes “act like sponges for certain pollutants and are easily ingested by aquatic organisms, including fish and shellfish, which may ultimately end up on our plates.”
During the second half of the 20th century plastic production rose 20 fold and it’s on pace to double over the next two decades. More plastic was produced during the first decade of the 21st century than in all of the 20th.
Approximately half of plastic is for single use. Some 70 billion plastic bottles and 1 trillion plastic bags are produced every year globally. The first disposable plastic pop bottle was produced in 1975 and the first plastic grocery bag was introduced a few years earlier.
Before wreaking havoc on ocean fauna, plastics also harm human health. In 2014 Mother Jones published an expose titled “Are any plastics safe?” It noted, “almost all commercially available plastics that were tested leached synthetic estrogens—even when they weren’t exposed to conditions known to unlock potentially harmful chemicals, such as the heat of a microwave, the steam of a dishwasher, or the sun’s ultraviolet rays.” The Mother Jones story draws a parallel between the plastic and tobacco industries.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides the federal government with a tool to restrict toxic substances while Environment Canada operates a scientific review to test for possible harm. Yet few plastic products have been outlawed.
Controversy over the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles and some toys prompted the federal government to ban use of this chemical in baby bottles but BPA is still used in other plastics. Similarly, in 2010 the government announced it was banning Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) flame retardants, which have been linked to cancer and other health ailments, but it didn’t outlaw the toxins from new plastic consumer items such as TVs until December and continues to allow PBDEs to be used in manufacturing items.
The toxins in plastics should be better regulated. Plastics can also be made less damaging by producing them from waste products and improving their decomposition. Additionally, measures to promote recycling are necessary. But, as Ian Angus points out, recycling is often a way for the industry to divert “attention away from the production of throwaway plastics to individual consumer behavior—the ‘solutions’ they promote involve cleaning up or recycling products that never should have been made in the first place.”
To that end activists have pressed universities to stop selling plastic bottles and for cities to restrict free plastic bags. While helpful, these efforts are overwhelmed by an economic system enthralled to wasteful consumption.
Based on externalizing costs and privatizing profits, 21st-century capitalism is turning our seas into a plastic blob.

Looting Iraq’s Oil

Edward Hunt

The leaders of the United States have provided many reasons for their numerous interventions in Iraq. President Donald Trump has focused on one thing: the United States should take the country’s oil.
During late 2015, when he first began campaigning to become the Republican nominee for president, Trump made his point when he described his plans for the Islamic State (ISIS or IS). “I would knock out the source of their wealth, the primary sources of their wealth, which is oil,” Trump told MSNBC in August 2015. After that, “I’d take the oil for our country,” he added.
In November 2015, Trump made a similar point in a campaign speech, saying that he would “bomb the shit” out of IS refineries and then have U.S. oil companies reconstruct them for the United States. The oil companies will “rebuild that sucker brand new,” Trump said. “It will be beautiful, and I’ll take the oil. And I said I’ll take the oil.”
Of course, Trump’s predecessors in the Bush and Obama administrations shared similar objectives. Although they did not speak about their goals in the same terms, officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations made great efforts to gain control of Iraq’s oil industry.
When the Bush administration was preparing in early 2003 to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, planners at the State Department placed oil at the center of the mission, calling for “a radical restructuring” of the Iraqi oil industry. A primary goal of the war, they advised, must be to open the country’s oil industry to international oil companies.
In fact, State Department officials came close to achieving their goal in mid-2008 when they helped to negotiate a series of deals to bring some of the most powerful oil companies into Iraq. The deals with the Iraqi government “will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations,” The New York Times reported.
Soon thereafter, Iraqi officials backed away from the deals, primarily because they created so much controversy, but officials in Washington didn’t abandon their efforts. After the Obama administration entered office in January 2009, U.S. officials continued pursuing deals that would open the country’s oil industry to U.S. oil companies.
U.S. diplomats in Iraq, who participated in the efforts, were quite optimistic about the possibilities. In June 2009, when the Iraqi government began a new bidding process for international oil companies to gain access to the country’s oil industry, U.S. diplomats could barely contain their excitement. “First Oil Bid Round: The Greatest Show On Earth,” the diplomats titled one of their internal reports to the State Department.
In the following months, the diplomats grew more excited. As the Iraqi government began making a series of deals with international oil companies, allowing them to begin operating in the country, the diplomats reported that a “black gold-rush” had begun. “The bidding started as a rush and quickly became a stampede as a broad range of international oil companies bid unheard of low prices for seven of the ten oil fields (or oil field groups) being offered,” the diplomats reported.
In the process, a number of the most powerful U.S.-based oil companies acquired contracts with the Iraqi government. As the diplomats noted in another report, “ExxonMobil and Occidental will participate in the development of approximately one-third of Iraq’s new, future oil production.” This is “a significant win for the U.S. economy,” they added.
Much has changed since U.S. officials began making their first real progress in opening the country’s oil industry. The rise of IS, and its rapid capture of large parts of Iraq and Syria, has made it far more difficult for oil companies to operate in various parts of the country.
At the same time, Trump’s plans to intervene in Iraq and take the oil should be recognized as just another variant of longstanding U.S. policy. In keeping with his “America First” motto, he has abandoned all pretense of ensuring multilateral access to the oil in favor of U.S. corporations alone. He may often frame his plan as a way of weakening IS, but he has made it clear that he has long felt that the United States should take the oil. Even before the rise of IS, “I always used to say, keep the oil,” Trump acknowledged in his post-inaugural speech at C.I.A. Headquarters. And “I said it for economic reasons,” he noted.
Indeed, Trump shares the same basic ambitions as his predecessors. By saying that he wants to take the oil, he is revealing what U.S. officials have been trying to do for years. They want to take Iraq’s oil, use it for the benefit of the United States, and let nothing stand in the way.
“So we should have kept the oil,” Trump insisted once again in his speech to his audience at the C.I.A. “Maybe you’ll have another chance,” he added.

Human Extinction 2026

Robert Hunziker

Human Extinction by 2026, a controversial/questionable idea, is examined in some detail on the web site: arctic-news.blogspot.com. Within the posted article, a bright red box highlights the hypothesis: “Will Humans Be Extinct By 2026?” Of course, simply posing the question is tantamount to endorsing the conclusion in the affirmative.
Also of recent, but not directly related to the extinction article, scientists moved the infamous Doomsday Clock ahead by 30 seconds closer to midnight because of rising global nationalism and failure to confront both nuclear weapons and climate change, coincidentally as Trump takes over control of the big red button, which is mythological.
By definition, an article dealing with human extinction is highly provocative and touchy and generally dismissed as balderdash. After all, it sounds kinda crazy. Still, the named article: “Will Humans Be Extinct By 2026?” warrants serious consideration. Here’s why: The Arctic News blog is an amalgam of serious research by topnotch scientists that “speak to truth.” They endorse the distinct possibility of an extinction event that will catch humanity flat-footed. They really believe it is a serious risk. These scientists go against the grain, telling it as they see it, not pulling any punches.
Conversely, it is well known that many climate scientists have been fudging their work; edits make bad seem less bad. Otherwise, those scientists stand to lose grants and funding. This is a fact confirmed by one of the world’s leading climate scientist (mentioned in prior articles). Ipso facto, fudging data is one of the bugaboos about accurate climate science, as scientists intentionally lowball.
Assuredly, submitting the interrogatory “Will Humans Be Extinct By 2026?” suggests the existence of solid evidence. But, in general, people do not, and will not, believe it. After all, how could it be true? Therein lies the major impediment to taking steps to prevent the problems of climate change. In point of fact, there are several good ideas to ameliorate climate change, if pursued in earnest.
For example, a recent NY Times headline: China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by 2020 (New York Times, Jan. 5, 2017). All of which brings to mind: What if the United States spent $360 billion on renewables? That would be hugely helpful in worldwide efforts to combat climate change.
But, since the U.S. is diametrically headed the other direction, meaning a pinpoint sharp focus on fossil fuel exploration and production, which emits the CO2 that blankets the atmosphere and brings on severe global warming, what then are the facts behind the purported rendezvous with death by the year 2026?
Is the death threat by 2026 credible?
And, what is the probability it happens?
The probability of a human extinction event within 10 years is 50/50, a guess! But still, it is based upon extremely severe levels of planetary stress/damage that are not widely recognized as a threat to society, i.e., global warming (off the charts, and accelerating, especially in the ocean) and massive destruction of the ecosystem, e.g., acidification of the ocean, which, over time, kills off the base of the marine food chain.
Significantly, the scientific model that leads to a conclusion that human extinction happens by 2026 is based upon facts, not fiction. Scientists simply extrapolate current data about the rate of climate change into the future. Voila, extinction is right around the corner. Ten years comes fast. Thus, the scientific modeling is credible, but the 50/50 probability is guesswork.
The following quote from the Arctic News/blog article brings this bleak issue into focus: “The situation is dire. Little or no action is taken on climate change. Earth faces a potential temperature rise of more than 10°C or 18°F by 2026.”
Without a doubt, worldwide temp increases by 18°F essentially wipes-out global agriculture.
However, it’s worth noting that no universal consensus of opinion by scientists comes close to this prediction, not close at all. The scientific community at large believes temps will gradually rise, slowly, and manageably with human life continuing throughout the century, not by 18°F. Obviously, the Paris Agreement calls for holding temps to 2°C above pre-industrial. Thus, 195 countries are not looking for anything above 2°C. Otherwise, why select the 2°C upper limit?
Accordingly, a temperature rise of 10°C or 18°F within a decade is lights out for the human species. That’s bad news, leaving the planet to cockroaches.
The supporting facts behind the extinction thesis start with the Paris Agreement of December 12th, 2015 when 195 worldwide governments agreed to hold temps below 2°C above pre-industrial levels but doggedly pursue a lower limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
Here’s the problem with the Paris Agreement: Land+Ocean temps, according to the Arctic News/blog article, for most of the year 2016 have been above the 1.5°C guardrail, in fact it’s been above that level for ten of the months from October 2015 to November 2016. Therefore, in part, the Paris Agreement is already passé; it’s too late!
Going forward, the extinction cadre scientists foresee a series of feedbacks that cascade one upon another, in turn, cranking up temps to 10°C or 18°F by 2026. It all starts with the Arctic where temps are running 2-3 times significantly ahead of the planet, shaking lose millennia-old methane buried within ice for eons that is fast melting away. Methane, in turn, is a rip-snorting tiger at heating up the atmosphere, nothing compares, as it hits full stride, commencing runaway global warming.
Alarmingly, some scientists also believe a burp of 50 gigatons of methane (CH4) could happen within the extremely shallow waters of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf at any time without notice because of the striking loss of ice cover in the Arctic. Earth’s atmosphere currently contains 5 gigatons of CH4. If the big 50-gt burp hits, it’d be a powerful shot of testosterone for the runaway global warming monster.
In turn, and aggravating matters ever more, water vapor, a very potent greenhouse gas as every 1°C warming increase equals 7% more water vapor, is goosed up, accelerating temps even more. The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the more water vapor it holds, in turn, turbo-charging global warming into a frenzy, blanketing the atmosphere and retaining heat, like an oven with the thermostat stuck wide open, hotter and hotter it goes without doing anything new.
In all, there are several feedback loops that reinforce one another, each one influencing another such that, like a whirling merry-go-round of horse carvings that spins out of control to hyper speed, features of individual horses become a whirling blur. That’s runaway global warming! Morosely, the paleoclimate record has an example of temps cranking up rapidly within only 13 years.
Fifty-five (55) million years ago, global temps increased by 5° C within 13 years; CO2 in the atmosphere was 1,000 ppm, and there was no ice on the planet (today ice is melting like crazy, irreversibly in certain areas of Antarctica, which is extremely problematic). That’s remarkable, as it should take hundreds of years, or more, for global temps to increase by 5° C, not a measly 13 years. This fact alone, as discovered by scientists studying timeless ice core and sediment, unfortunately reinforces the “Human Extinction by 2026” thesis, somewhat. But, if 5° C within 13 years is considered warp speed in paleoclimate history, and it is, then the projection of 10°C or 18°F by 2026 seems awfully aggressive. On the other hand, because of human fossil fuel activity and the massive accumulation of warming yet in the pipeline (the latency effect), it’s within the range of possibility.
Furthermore, “no ice on the planet” (55 million years ago), equates to the imagery portrayed by the film Waterworld (Universal Pictures, 1995), post-apocalyptic science fiction when polar ice caps melted. One mythological storyline in the film claims dry land exists somewhere in the world. They search for it.
If the Doomsday Clock included everything that is wrong with Gaia, like the ocean absorbing up to 90% of planetary heat, which helps considerably to hold down land temps (tricking humans into thinking global warming is not as bad as it really is), but which also has a nasty habit of reversing the heat as a reverse feedback loop into nasty ole runaway global warming, then the Doomsday Clock is only a few seconds from midnight. That’s how dangerously close some scientists believe humanity is to extinction. Hopefully, they are dead wrong.
Alternatively, a counter-balancing course of action, the United States leads the world in renewables, but alas, Donald Trump is president and Scott Pruitt is Trump’s lead man for EPA (The Twilight Zone redux).
“Since President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, no prospective administrator has ever fundamentally questioned science or showed broad disdain for the work of the agency. That is until Scott Pruitt’s nomination” (Trump’s EPA Pick Scott Pruitt Won’t Stand up for Science. He Never Has, The Hill, 01/31/17).
Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord, has flown by, dropping her Golden Apple of Discord, aka Scott Pruitt, into the lap of the U.S. Senate.