24 Aug 2022

US, South Korea resume large-scale joint war games

Peter Symonds


The US and South Korea have restarted major joint military exercises for the first time in four years—a move certain to heighten tensions with North Korea and throughout the region.

The resumption of large-scale war games breaks a tacit agreement between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June 2018 to end such exercises in return for a moratorium on North Korean testing of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.

Two Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs fly alongside a Korean aircraft during Buddy Squadron over Wonju Air Base, South Korea, July 12, 2022 (Photo: US Department of Defense)

The military drills in South Korea, adjacent to northern China and Russia’s Far East, take place as the Biden administration wages a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and goads Beijing into conflict over Taiwan.

The Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) military exercises began on Monday, after preliminary exercises last week, and will continue to September 1. While details of their scope and size are limited, the war games involve thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of military personnel from the US and South Korea.

According to the Yonhap newsagency, the exercises are based on an “all-out war concept” and include computer simulation drills, 13 large-scale field training exercises and civilian defence.

The exercises involve a wide range of weaponry, including military aircraft, warships and tanks, and will rehearse joint aircraft carrier strike drills and amphibious landings.

The associated four-day civil defence exercise also began on Monday and involves 480,000 people from about 4,000 public institutions.

Nominally, the war games claim to be defensive—repelling a North Korean attack and defending the capital Seoul, then counter-attacking. However, joint planning under OPLAN 5015, agreed by the US and South Korea in 2015, involves pre-emptive strikes against North Korea and special forces “decapitation raids” to assassinate its top leaders.

Under the South Korean military alliance with the United States, the US has 28,500 troops stationed in bases in the country, along with warplanes and other military hardware, on permanent high alert. Moreover, in the event of war, the US military would have operational control (OPCON) over the huge, heavily-armed South Korean military and its 550,000 personnel. A transfer of command to South Korea has been under negotiation and foreshadowed for years but is yet to take place.

Both the US and South Korea claim the resumption of such military exercises is necessary because North Korea has conducted more than 30 missile tests this year and allegedly is preparing for a seventh nuclear test. In fact, South Korea’s right-wing president, Yoon Suk-yeol, who took office in May, campaigned on a tougher military stance toward North Korea, including a pre-emptive strike capability, and the restarting of huge annual joint war games with the US.

Last week, as the preliminary joint drills were about to begin, President Yoon announced an “audacious initiative” for peace on the Korean Peninsula—offering Pyongyang a large food program and economic assistance to upgrade infrastructure in return for the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program and arsenal. It was a sham offer that Yoon knew in advance would be rejected, as it included nothing about what is vital for North Korea—an end to the US-led economic and diplomatic sanctions that have crippled its economy.

Washington’s resumption of large-scale military exercises in South Korea is a calculated provocation. It is the US, not North Korea, that breached the understanding reached in 2018 between Trump and Kim Jong-un. Despite Trump effectively scuttling further talks by insisting that North Korea de-nuclearise before the lifting of any sanctions, Pyongyang has not conducted a nuclear test and has largely limited its missile testing to short- and medium-range rockets.

By restarting the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises, the Biden administration has calculated that North Korea will have to respond—possibly by conducting a nuclear test—which would then provide the pretext for a further US military escalation.

The US announced last week that it would respond to a further North Korean nuclear test by deploying “strategic assets” in South Korea. The US warning followed a two-day meeting of the Korea-US Integrated Defense Dialogue (KIDD) and is part of a joint strategy agreed by Washington and Seoul.

While not specified, “strategic assets” could include strategic bombers, nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers capable of carrying nuclear missiles and bombs, as well as tactical nuclear weapons.

The announcement follows a similar declaration on August 11 by South Korean Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup, warning of a “high intensity” response to a North Korean nuclear test. “We plan to mobilise not only South Korean military capabilities but also US strategic assets,” he stated.

The stationing of US strategic weaponry in South Korea is not only, or even primarily, aimed against North Korea, but against China and Russia. Even as it escalates its proxy war against Russia, the Biden administration is engaged in one provocation after another against China, focused on Taiwan, raising the danger of a global conflict involving nuclear-armed powers.

South Korea is already integrated into US nuclear war preparations. It hosts permanent US military bases and, along with Japan, is also part of the US anti-ballistic missile network in Northeast Asia. In 2017, the US deployed its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea, with the capacity to detect and shoot down long-range ballistic missiles.

While claiming such anti-missile systems are defensive, they are not designed to counter an all-out nuclear attack. Rather, the Pentagon is seeking the ability to launch a devastating nuclear attack on Russia and/or China that would eliminate their ability to retaliate. The THAAD systems are designed to counter any remaining enemy nuclear missiles. The US has never renounced a nuclear first strike.

Significantly, earlier this month, the US conducted so-called missile defence exercises jointly with South Korea and Japan in Hawaii for the first time since 2017. The US has exerted considerable pressure on both its military allies to work together, including through the signing of a high-level intelligence sharing agreement. Rapid intelligence sharing is viewed as essential by the Pentagon for the working of joint anti-ballistic missile systems.

The KIDD talks held last week not only warned of the deployment of US strategic assets to South Korea, but reaffirmed the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between Tokyo and Seoul, as well as trilateral military cooperation. The meeting also reactivated a US-South Korea military coordination body, suspended in 2018, to plan “extended deterrence” measures against North Korea and discussed greater cooperation in the research and development of hi-tech weaponry, including in the domains of space, quantum computing, cyber defence, artificial intelligence and automation.

South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program administration announced in early August that it has been working on nearly 200 projects, including new surveillance satellites, tactical ground-to-ground guided weapons, ballistic missile early warning radar and long-range surface-to-air missile systems.

While North Korea provides a convenient pretext, the strengthening of the US military collaboration with, and military presence in, South Korea and Japan is the preparation for a wider war against both Russia and China.

23 Aug 2022

HBNU Fogarty Global Health Fellowship 2023/2024

Application Deadline: 1st November 2022 by 11:59pm

Eligible Countries: U.S. pre- and post-doctoral students, as well as postdoctoral fellows from Lower and Middle Income Countries (LMICs).

To Be Taken At (Country): HBNU Fogarty Fellowship projects must be hosted by one of twenty-one training sites across fifteen countries in Africa, Asia, and South America available through the Harvard-BU-Northwestern-UNM Consortium.

About the Award: HBNU Fellowship offers opportunities in global health research training for pre- and post-doctoral candidates from the U.S. and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), sponsored by the Fogarty International Center (FIC) and several collaborating Institutes and Centers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The program provides opportunities to generate a new cadre of global health researchers, educators, and professionals who will be prepared to address the new challenges in global health. The program provides fellows with a 12-month, mentored research fellowship in innovative global health research to promote health equity for populations around the world.

Type: Fellowship, Training

Eligibility: Applicants must meet the following eligibility criteria:

1.  U.S. Pre-Doctoral Fellowship
a.    U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
b.    Enrolled in accredited doctoral level program (MD, PhD or equivalent) in public health, government, business, design, engineering,    education, medicine, nutrition, law, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, or nursing.
c.    Health-professional students who wish to interrupt their studies for a year or more to engage in full-time research training before completing their formal training programs are also eligible.
d.    Available to dedicate 40 hours per week to the research fellowship for 11-12 months at the international site, beginning in July.

2.  U.S. Post-Doctoral Fellowship
a.    U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
b.    Received, as of the beginning date of the training period, a PhD, MD, DDS, or comparable doctoral degree from an accredited       institution. Comparable doctoral degrees include, but are not limited to, the following: DMD, DC, DO, DVM, OD, DPM, ScD, EngD, DrPH, DNSc, DPT, PharmD, ND (Doctor of Naturopathy), DSW, PsyD, as well as a doctoral degree in nursing research.
c.    Available to dedicate 40 hours per week to the research fellowship for 11-12 months at the international site, beginning in July.

Note: U.S. applicants affiliated with universities that are not part of an FIC Global Health Program Consortium (HBNU, GloCal, GHES, UJMT, NPGH, VECD) are welcome to apply through this consortium. Applicants who are affiliated with a university that is part of an FIC Global Health Program Consortium should apply through their university’s consortium.

3.  LMIC Post-Doctoral Fellowship
a.    Citizen of one of HBNU’s collaborating LMICs. LMIC postdocs must be affiliated with the site of their proposed research project.
b.    Received, as of the beginning date of the training period, a PhD, MD, DDS, or comparable doctoral degree from an accredited institution. Comparable doctoral degrees include, but are not limited to, the following: DMD, DC, DO, DVM, OD, DPM, ScD, EngD, DrPH, DNSc, DPT, PharmD, ND (Doctor of Naturopathy), DSW, PsyD, as well as a doctoral degree in nursing research.
c.    Available to dedicate 40 hours per week to the research fellowship for 11-12 months at the international site, beginning in July.

Preference is given to any applicants with co-funding from their institution’s NIH T32, D43, MEPI or other grants.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

– Monthly stipend for 12 months. All stipends are potentially taxable under U.S. and international law.
– Funding for research support (lab supplies, software…)
– International health insurance for U.S. applicants
– Required vaccinations for U.S. applicants
– Visa and passport fees
– Roundtrip overseas travel to the training site for U.S. applicants
– Travel and accommodation to attend the orientation at NIH in July

Duration of Programme: Applicants must commit to dedicating 40 hours per week for an 11-12 month period at the international site.

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship 2023/2024

Application Deadline:

1st November 2022

Tell Me About UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship:

Our program aims to support projects across a diverse range of research topics. However, we expect targeted funding for proposals on HIV, cancer, diabetes, digestive and kidney diseases, mental health, and/or neurological disorders.

Since 2012, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins University, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Tulane University have offered mentored research training through the UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship program, funded by the Fogarty International Center within the National Institutes of Health.

This consortium brings together four top-ranked universities and their respective international research training sites in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Trainee research projects are supported by mentors with expertise in clinical, public health, laboratory, and implementation research. Each trainee works with a team of mentors, including at least one U.S. and one international member to monitor the trainee’s progress and provide on-site supervision.

What Type of Scholarship is this?

Fellowship

Who is Eligible for UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship?

Candidate Eligibility

United States-based trainees:

  • Citizen or permanent resident of the U.S.
  • Candidates from any U.S. institution are eligible, though applicants from the four consortium universities may be given priority
  • Applicants from underrepresented minorities are encouraged to apply.

International trainees:
We fund postdoctoral researchers who are citizens of one of 16 countries where there are program affiliated research institutions. Typically, international trainees have an appointment or affiliation with the training site and local mentors.

Education Requirements

Postdoctoral applicants (U.S. and foreign nationals):

Completion of a graduate degree —MD, PhD, DrPH, DVM, PharmD, or equivalent — by July of the academic year.

Doctoral applicants (U.S. only):

  • enrolled in a graduate degree program at a U.S. or affiliated international institution
  • able to defer studies over the course of the fellowship to focus on research activities
  • in later stages of training (e.g., following comprehensive examinations, after clinical rotations) will be given priority.

Which Countries are Eligible?

Regardless of their institutional affiliation, trainees will work at one of our core research sites in the following countries:

  • Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia
  • Asia: Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Vietnam
  • Americas: Bolivia, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname

Where will Award be Taken?

USA

How Many Fellowships will be Given?

Not specified

What is the Benefit of UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship?

  • Full award: A 12-month full-time appointment and includes a monthly stipend, research funds, health insurance and emergency medical and evacuation insurance, and travel funds.
  • Travel and research award: A 12-month full-time appointment and includes research funds, health insurance and emergency medical and evacuation insurance, and travel funds.

How Long will the Program Last?

12 months

How to Apply for UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship:

Apply Now for 2023-2024. Due November 1, 2022.

  • All components should be single-spaced, with 0.5” margins, and in Arial 11-point font.
  • The page limit for each section is specified below.
  • Application materials should be reviewed by a mentor(s) prior to submission.

Guidance for Application Materials

Research proposal (2 pages): It is expected that applicants review the proposed research design extensively with their mentor in the U.S. and at the international site. Trainees are required to have at least two mentors.

  1. Specific Aims
  2. Research Plan (overview)
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach
  3. Timeline for proposed scope of work
  4. Human Subjects (describe the IRB process and timeline for approval)
  5. References should be provided but will not count toward the two-page limit

Budget and budget justification (1 page): Can include personnel and travel costs.

  1. U.S. or foreign postdoctoral: Up to $10,000 for research expenses.
  2. U.S. or foreign doctoral: Up to $7,000 for research expenses

Statement of career goals (1 page)

Plan for mentorship (1 page): This should include specific areas of mentorship and frequency of meetings/calls with members on the mentorship committee.

NIH Biosketch: Pay close attention to formatting, an improperly formatted biosketch reflects poorly on your application. NIH instructions are available for assistance in developing a biosketch here: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm.

NIH Biosketch for primary mentors: Biosketches required from the U.S. and international mentors.

Letters of recommendation: Up to four letters, mentors should email their letters directly to FGHFP@med.unc.edu

  1. U.S. mentor letter (required)
  2. International mentor letter (required) – this mentor should be living and working full-time at the site
  3. One additional letter may be submitted from a co-mentor on this application, a prior mentor, or a prior or current supervisor
  4. Program co-funding (if jointly supported with another grant) – if the applicant has secured co-funding from another training program (e.g. T32 program) or grant, a separate letter from the PI or director should be included outlining the amount and duration of this support

Visit UJMT Fogarty Global Health Fellowship Webpage for Details

DAAD Masters Scholarships 2023/2024

Application Deadline: 31st August 2022

Type: Masters

Eligibility for the DAAD Masters Scholarships:

  • Excellently-qualified graduates who have completed a first degree (Bachelor, Diploma or comparable academic degree) at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme.
  • For applicants from artistic disciplines and the field of architecture, the DAAD offers subject-specific scholarship programmes.

Selection Criteria:

  • As a rule, applicants should have taken their final examinations no longer than six years before the application deadline.
  • Applicants who have been resident in Germany for longer than 15 months at the application deadline cannot be considered.
  • Notification of admission from the German host university for the desired degree course; please note that you yourself are responsible for ensuring that you apply for admission at the host university by the due date. If notification of admission is not yet available at the time of application, it must be subsequently submitted before the scholarship-supported study begins. A Scholarship Award Letter from the DAAD is only valid if you have been admitted to study at the desired host university.
  • If the degree programme includes a study period or work placement abroad lasting several months, funding for this period abroad is usually only possible under the following conditions:
    The study visit is essential for achievement of the scholarship objective.
    The study period is no longer than a quarter of the scholarship period. Longer periods cannot be funded, even partially.
    The study period does not take place in the home country.

Eligible Countries for the DAAD Masters Scholarships: International

To be Taken at (Country): Germany

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of DAAD Masters Scholarships:

  • Participation in a postgraduate programme after a first undergraduate course of study for the purpose of technical or scientific specialisation
  • Specifically, the following is supported:
    a postgraduate or Master’s degree programme completed at a state or state-recognised university in Germany
    or
    the first or second year of study at a state or state-recognised German university as part of a postgraduate or Master’s degree programme completed in the home country or in another foreign country; recognition of the academic achievements rendered in Germany must be guaranteed. The standard period of study of the postgraduate or Master’s degree programme should not be exceeded as a result of the study year in Germany.

Value

  • Scholarship payments of 861 euros a month
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
  • Travel allowance
  • One-off study allowance

Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:

  • Monthly rent subsidy
  • Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family

Duration of Award: For a postgraduate or Master’s degree completed in Germany:

  • between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme
  • The scholarships are awarded for the duration of the standard period of study for the chosen study programme (up to a maximum of 24 months). To receive further funding after the first year of study for 2-year courses, proof of academic achievements thus far should indicate that the study programme can be successfully completed within the standard period of study.
  • Applicants who are already in Germany in the first academic year of a 2-year postgraduate or Master’s programme at the time of their application may apply for a scholarship for the second year of study. In this case, it is not possible to extend the scholarship.

For a study period in Germany as part of a postgraduate or Master’s degree completed in a foreign country:

  • usually one academic year; an extension is not possible.

The scholarship usually begins on 1st October, or earlier if the student takes a language course prior to the study programme.

How to Apply for DAAD Masters Scholarships: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. Please note that the access to the application portal only appears while the current application period is running. After the application deadline has expired, the portal for this programme is not available until the next application period.

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit DAAD Masters Scholarships Webpage for Details

Is There Enough Metal to Replace Oil?

Robert Hunziker


The short answer: No, not even close!

Nations of the world are only too aware that fossil fuels need to be phased out for two reasons. First, oil is a finite commodity. It’ll run out in time. Secondly, fossil fuel emissions such as CO2 are destroying the planet’s climate system.

However, a recent study puts a damper on the prospects of phasing out fossil fuels in favor of renewables. More to the point, a phase out of fossil fuels by mid century looks to be a nearly impossible Sisyphean task. It’s all about quantities of minerals/metals contained in Mother Earth. There aren’t enough.

Simon Michaux, PhD, Geological Survey Finland has done a detailed study of what’s required to phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables, to wit:

“The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues.” (Source: Simon P. Michaux, Associate Research Professor of Geometallurgy Unit Minerals Processing and Materials Research, Geological Survey of Finland, August 18, 2022 – Seminar: What Would It Take To Replace The Existing Fossil Fuel System?)

Metals/minerals required to source gigafactories producing renewables to power the world’s economies when fossil fuels phase out looks to be one of the biggest quandaries of all time. There’s not enough metal.

Michaux researched and analyzed the current status of the internal combustion engine fleet of cars, trucks, rail, maritime shipping, and aviation for the US, Europe, and China, accessing databases to gather information as a starting point for the study.

Michaux’s calculations for what’s required to phase out fossil fuels uses a starting point of 2018 with 84.5% of primary energy still fossil fuel-based and less than 1% of the world’s vehicle fleet electric. Therefore, the first generation of renewable energy is only now coming on stream, meaning there will be no recycling availability of production materials for some time. Production will have to be sourced from mining.

When Michaux presented basic information to EU analysts, it was a shock to them. To his dismay, they had not put together the various mineral/metal data requirements to phase out fossil fuels and replaced by renewables. They assumed, using guesstimates, the metals would be available.

A key issue for the accomplishment of renewables is power storage because of the impact of wind and solar intermittency, both of which are highly intermittent. Most studies assume gas will be the buffer for intermittency. Other than using fossil fuel such as gas as a buffer, an adequate power storage system to handle intermittency will require 30 times more material than what electric vehicles require with current plans, meaning the scope is much larger than the current paradigm allows.

One factor that will influence what materials and systems are used to build out renewables is the fact that EVs require a battery that is 3.2 times the mass of the equivalent of a hydrogen fuel tank. Therefore, an analysis of EVs versus hydrogen fuel cells indicates it’ll be necessary to build out the global fleet with EVs for city traffic and hydrogen fuel cells for all long-range vehicles like semi-trailers, rails, and maritime shipping.

The entire renewable build-out requires 36,000 terawatt hours to operate, meaning 586,000 new non-fossil fuel power stations of average size. The current fleet of power stations is only 46,000, meaning it’ll take 10 times the current number of power stations, yet to be built.

The new annual energy capacity of 36,007.9 terrawatt hours will supply (1) 29 million EV Buses (2) 601.3 million Commercial EV Vans (3) 695.2 million EV Passenger Cars (4) 28.9 million H2-Cell Trucks (5) 62 million EV Motorcycles (6). Hydro will also need to be expanded by 115% by 2050 and nuclear will need to double. Biomass will stay the same. It’s already at limitations. Geothermal triples.

Additionally, buffer systems are crucial to handle intermittency. For example, Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia, which is an Elon Musk project with a 100-megawatt capacity. The EU is using Hornsdale as the standard buffer system. Globally, 15,635,478 Hornsdale-type stations will need to be built across the planet and connected to the power grid system just to meet a 4-week buffer system. This is 30 times the capacity compared to the entire global vehicle fleet. Therefore the market for batteries is substantially larger than currently understood and accounted for in planning for a renewable economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report on how much metal is required per unit to build out a renewable economy. As well as a study of what 2040 market share would look like for batteries for light duty vehicles and heavy duty vehicles and power storage at the level of the global fleet for solar panels in 2040 and hydrogen fuel cells, trucks, freight locomotives, maritime shipping, wind turbines and power storage buffer.

The total metals required for one generation of technology to phase out fossil fuels is listed by Required Production followed by Known Reserves for all metals based upon tonnes, as follows:

Copper 4,575,523,674 vs. 880,000,000 – a serious shortfall -reserves only cover 20% of requirements.

Zinc 35,704,918 vs. 250,000,000 – adequate reserves.

Manganese 227,889,504 vs 1,500,000,000 – adequate reserves

Nickel 940,578,114 vs. 95,000,000 – huge shortfall – reserves 10% of requirements.

Lithium 944,150,293 vs. 95,000,000 = huge shortfall – reserves 10% of requirements.

Cobalt 218,396,990 vs. 7,600,000 – huge shortfall – reserves 3.48% of requirements.

Graphite 8,973,640,257 vs. 320,000,000 = huge shortfall – 3.57% reserves of requirements.

Silicon (metallurgical) 49,571,460 – adequate reserves

Silver 145,579 vs. 530,000 – adequate reserves

Vanadium 681,865,986 vs. 24,000,000= huge shortfall -3.52% reserves of requirement

Zirconium 2,614,126 vs.70, 000,000 – adequate reserves.

Prior to 2020- the global system mined 700 million tons of copper throughout all history. Looking forward, the same 700 million tons will need to be mined over the next 22 years, which is based upon current economic growth rates without giving consideration to what’s needed for one generation of renewables.

Current reserves of copper are 880 million tons. But 4.5 billion tons of copper are required just to manufacture one generation of renewable technology. Hmm.

Moreover, each renewable technology has a life cycle of 8 to 25 years. Thereafter, they need to be decommissioned and replaced. Also, whether renewables are strong enough, and sustainably enough to power the next industrial era is a question that hangs in the air.

THE PAST – “An industrial ecosystem of unprecedented size and complexity, that took more than a century to build with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of cheap energy the world has ever known (oil) in abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and unlimited mineral resources.” (Michaux)

THE PRESENT – “We now seek to build an even more complex system with very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, with an unprecedented number of the human population, embedded in a deteriorating environment.” (Michaux)

Current mineral reserves are not adequate to resource metal production to manufacture the generation of renewable energy technology, as current mining is not even close to meeting the expected demand for one generation of renewable technology.

90% of Marine Species Face Extinction Under Emissions Status Quo: Study

Julia Conley


marine life fishmarine life fish

A new study details the disastrous consequences that would result for marine life across the world’s oceans if current levels of fossil fuel emissions are maintained, with up to 90% of ocean species facing extinction.

Daniel Boyce, a research scientist at Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia, Canada, led the study examining 35,000 species of marine flora and fauna as well as bacteria and protozoans, devising a new analytical tool called the Climate Risk Index for Biodiversity (CRIB).

Under the current level of emissions, which the United Nations said in 2019 were on track to raise global temperature by 3-5° Celsius, nearly 90% of marine species would be at high-to-critical risk of being wiped out and 85% of those species’ native habitats would be affected, on average.

“It is the worst case scenario,” Boyce told ABC News. “And when we evaluated that scenario, we found that there was a very grim picture for the climate risk for marine species.”

Boyce wrote at Carbon Brief Monday that major predator species including sharks and tuna were found to have “a significantly higher risk than species further down the food chain, such as forage fishes and invertebrates.”

“As these apex species can exert a disproportionate influence on ecosystems, it further suggests that ecosystem structure and functioning will be affected,” wrote Boyce, whose research was published in Nature Climate Change.

The study also shows how the climate crisis is exacerbating global inequality, with people in the Global South expected to face major direct impacts of the widespread extinction of marine species.

“Climate risk is largest in coastal ecosystems that support the highest fishery catches and in many subtropical and tropical ecosystems that tend to be biodiversity hotspots,” said Boyce, identifying coastal areas in South America, Central America, and South Asia as some of the places that will see the sharpest declines in marine life under the status quo.

“This then represents yet another example of climate inequality,” he added. “While low-income countries have made the smallest contribution to climate change, they are likely to bear the brunt of the impacts while being the least well positioned to adapt.”

About 10% of the world’s ocean ecosystems are at high risk of experiencing the worst effects described in the study, with ecosystems featuring species that are only found in one geographic area most at risk.

The study was published days after U.S. President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which contains investments in renewable energy that some researchers say could reduce U.S. emissions by roughly 40% compared to 2005 levels by 2030. Others believe those estimates are too generous.

The independent analytical report Climate Action Tracker said this month that the signing of the IRA “marks a radical shift in U.S. climate action” and could send a powerful message to other countries that are behind in meeting the emissions targets set by the Paris climate agreement, but noted that under the law, the U.S. will still be at “a distance from its 2030 target of 50-52% below 2005 levels” and rated the country’s climate action “on the border between ‘Insufficient’ and ‘Almost sufficient.'”

Climate campaigners have applauded the passage of the IRA while calling on lawmakers to pass more far-reaching legislation requiring emissions reductions from companies and restricting new fossil fuel development.

At Carbon Brief, Boyce emphasized that his team’s study predicts “a potentially bleak future for many marine species,” but “also measures how much our oceans and the life within them stand to benefit from both climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

Reducing emissions enough to meet the Paris agreement’s goal of keeping global heating below 2° Celsius “would cut the risk [of extinction] for about 98.2% of the analyzed species.”

“Sticking to the goals of the Paris agreement would have substantial benefits for marine life, with the disproportionate climate risk for ecosystem structure, biodiversity hotspots, fisheries, and low-income nations being greatly reduced or eliminated,” said Boyce.

Egypt’s Central Bank governor resigns amid escalating economic and social crisis

Jean Shaoul


Last Wednesday, in a sign of the increasing financial and economic turmoil engulfing the brutal regime of Egypt’s military dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, central bank governor Tareq Amer resigned.

His departure, a year ahead of the end of his term of office, came as the Egyptian pound fell to 19.1 to the dollar, a 22 percent drop since March, as derivatives traders gambled on a further fall. It was the sharpest decline since December 2016 when the pound fell a month after a massive 48 percent devaluation implemented as one of the conditions for a bailout by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

After currency traders withdrew billions from Egypt following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the central bank allowed the pound to depreciate by roughly 12 percent in March and more recently to weaken further.

Egyptian Central Bank Governor Tarek Amer speaks during a press conference at the Central Bank of Egypt in Cairo, Nov. 3, 2016. Amer resigned as the country has struggled to address its financial woes. According to a Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2022 statement from President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi's office, el-Sissi accepted the resignation and named him a presidential adviser. The brief statement offered no reason for Amer’s resignation and no replacement was immediately named. [AP Photo/Nariman El-Mofty, File]

Egypt, the world’s largest importer of wheat, with around 80 percent of its supplies coming from Russia and Ukraine, is one of the countries hardest hit by the war. Its tourism sector, which is heavily dependent upon both Russian and Ukrainian visitors, employs 10 percent of the country’s workers and accounts for 12 percent of GDP, has seen a sharp fall.

The collapse of such a vital sector comes after the pandemic that not only shrank revenues but also upped expenditure on health, social welfare and support for tourism and the industrial sector, as remittances from Egyptians working in the Gulf fell and workers returned, swelling the ranks of the unemployed.

While the central bank raised interest rates and Saudi Arabia provided $5 billion to shore up el-Sisi’s coffers in March, this did little to stem the outflow of Egypt’s foreign currency reserves. In April, the government announced a raft of new austerity measures, including cutbacks in government spending, the postponement of all new projects, a freeze on new hires and the privatization of state-owned companies. In May, Moody’s, the ratings agency, downgraded Egypt’s outlook to negative, citing fears of social unrest. A few days ago, the Health Ministry announced it intended to invest health insurance funds in the stock exchange, sparking fears of yet another embezzlement of public monies.

These latest measures come on top of those imposed by el-Sisi in return for $20 billion in loans from the IMF in 2016, when he slashed subsidies on basic domestic and agricultural commodities, raised fuel prices, imposed new taxes including a value added tax, cut the health and education budgets, fired government employees and allowed the currency to float. The measures have hiked up the cost of living with inflation now officially running at 15 percent. The prices of some foodstuffs have risen by 66 percent—ruining much of Egypt’s middle class and leading to soaring poverty rates. Some 30 per cent of the population live below the poverty line, another 30 per cent are close to poverty and nearly 70 percent depend on food rations.

Last month, the children’s cancer hospital in Tanta in the Nile Delta, providing treatment free of charge for around 3,000 young cancer patients a year, announced it would have to close, citing high costs and falling donations. Cairo’s main cancer hospital faces the same dilemma. Government spending on healthcare accounts for just 3 percent of its budget.

Egypt’s dilapidated health system proved incapable of coping with the pandemic. Starved of resources, with hospitals and clinics lacking the most basic equipment, including ventilators, oxygen supplies and personal protective equipment, tens of thousands of medical staff have emigrated over the last three years. As hundreds of doctors died of COVID-19, they were arrested and harassed for speaking out about the crisis in the country or questioning the government’s totally unbelievable figure of 25,000 deaths, which they were held responsible for. Just 39 million of Egypt’s 104 million population have received two vaccine doses.

The IMF is dictating this latest round of austerity measures after Egypt applied for further funding in March. This is largely to service the country’s existing debts, which account for almost one third of government spending and 91 percent of GDP, and to fund el-Sisi’s grandiose projects—considered of little economic value. These include a $58 billion new administrative capital some 28 miles out in the desert east of Cairo, a $25 billion nuclear reactor and an $8 billion expansion of the Suez Canal. El-Sisi is also making vast arms purchases—largely from the US despite Egypt’s appalling human rights record.

El-Sisi has turned to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for support. These countries have started to invest significant funds in Egypt, buying up some of the country’s most profitable state-owned assets and companies at knock-down prices. This has drawn Cairo into Washington’s anti-Iran alliance, with el-Sisi attending the Jeddah meeting with leaders from the Gulf States, Jordan and Iraq and US President Joe Biden in June. Egypt has played a key role in maintaining Israel’s criminal 15-year long blockade of the Gaza Strip—ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group Hamas—suppressing Palestinian opposition to Israeli rule and earlier this month brokering a ceasefire between Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Israel on Tel Aviv’s terms.

Within Egypt itself, el-Sisi rules with an iron fist, clamping down on all dissent to defend Egyptian and foreign capital in the country against a social explosion of the working class who face mass poverty, social inequality and a military kleptocracy that controls at least 40 percent of the economy. He has repeatedly renewed Egypt’s state of emergency, outlawing public meetings and demonstrations, sanctioning the detention of people without trial or even without charge and censoring the media.

Just last week, dozens of police fired tear gas to disperse protests against the government’s plans to demolish thousands of homes to make way for upscale development projects on the Warraq island on the Nile River in Giza, part of the Cairo conurbation, and made several arrests. It follows the demolition last month of a hospital, youth centre and two schools serving 6,500 students on the island.

Hardly a day goes by without more revelations of widespread abuses, from torture to enforced disappearances to the detention of tens of thousands of political prisoners. While el-Sisi denies there are political prisoners in Egypt, local and international human rights groups estimate that 65,000—many of whom have never stood trial—are being held behind bars, put there since he seized power in a bloody coup against the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated government of President Mohammed Morsi in July 2013.

El-Sisi has cracked down not just on the Muslim Brotherhood—Egypt’s largest political opposition party, branded a terrorist organisation and outlawed—but opponents across the political spectrum. He is supported by the imperialist powers for his services in the region.

The well-known blogger and political activist, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who holds dual British and Egyptian citizenship and came to prominence as an early opponent of the Mubarak dictatorship, has spent much of the time since 2011 in jail on charges of inciting violence against the military and opposing laws banning protests. Sentenced to a further five years on terrorism charges for sharing a social media post about torture in a detention centre, el-Fattah has been on hunger strike for 119 days inside a desert prison north of Cairo.

Earlier this year, Egypt’s Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) announced the suspension of its activities after nearly two decades due to the authorities’ “increasing disregard for the rule of law, the growing violations of human rights and police harassment” and following “repeated persecutions against the organisation and its staff.”

Last week, Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly announced a reshuffle of his cabinet, in place since June 2018, aimed at cleaning up its debased public image and defusing public anger.

Among those dismissed include: the Health Minister Hala Zayed, who is linked to the bribery scandal of her ex-husband and granted licenses to private hospitals without enforcing any regulations regarding their operation; the Minister of Immigration, Nabila Makram, whose son was accused of a double murder in the US; the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources, Dr Mohamed Abdel-Aty, widely blamed for Egypt’s handling of the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which threatens Egypt’s share in the waters of the Nile River; Education Minister Tariq Shawky, who presided over the failure of the new education system; and the Minister of the Business Sector, Hisham Tawfiq, responsible for the privatization of state-owned property.

Needless to say, key ministers holding the foreign affairs, defence, interior, finance and supply portfolios all kept their posts.

El Salvador’s President Bukele arrests 1 percent of population in four-month “state of exception”

Andrea Lobo


The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, last week celebrated his police and military having arrested “50,000 terrorists” in the first four months since his declaration of a “state of exception,” which suspended democratic rights.

Tens of thousands of mostly young workers are being detained arbitrarily, processed in mass hearings of up to 500 defendants at a time, and forced to sleep on the floor in packed cells in a pandemic and with little food. Dozens are reportedly being beaten to death.

Soldier patrolling Parque Cuscatlán in San Salvador; heavily armed police stopping drivers in San Salvador; soldiers and police deployed in San Miguel; a soldier polices a bus terminal in Apopa (Fuerzas Armadas de El Salvador)

Across neighborhoods, parks, bus terminals, commercial areas, and beaches, heavily armed troops and police are constantly harassing workers, enforcing an atmosphere in which anyone could be detained for any reason and at any time. Plagued by death squads, these repressive forces kill over 200 civilians yearly—the US equivalent of 10,200 people—and leave three dead for every injured in the average engagement.

Such a state of authoritarian terror has fully lifted the thin veils of “democracy” placed by US imperialism over the Salvadoran state after the supposed end of the dictatorship that ruled for half a century until 1979 and the end of the civil war in 1992. This façade was established with the connivance of the petty-bourgeois nationalist and Stalinist leaders of the FMLN guerrilla movement, which transformed itself into a ruling bourgeois party within which Bukele and the clique around him rose to prominence, including many former military officials in charge of massacring FMLN combatants, workers and peasants.

Claiming to be waging a “war on gangs,” Bukele and his cabinet threatened to implement life sentences and even starve those arrested. During the state of exception, the official number of detainees accused of belonging to gangs grew from 16,000 to 66,000, while human rights organizations say that there are over 76,000 detainees in the country—about 1.2 percent of the country’s population.

The state of exception was declared and approved by Congress, where Bukele’s party holds an absolute majority, immediately after 87 people were killed between March 25 and 27, with many bodies left on the street. After months of recording many days without any murders, the wave of killings seemed suspiciously orchestrated to justify a ready package of autocratic laws and a military and police offensive against working-class youth.

The Congress revised the Penal Code to include 45-year prison sentences for supposed gang members and 10-to-15-year jail sentences against any media outlet that “shares and transmits messages that originated or presumably originate from gangs.” The term “presumably” means that anything goes.

As inflation increases poverty levels, austerity is used to finance public debt payments that have doubled in the last decade, and COVID-19 causes mass death and illness, the state of exception cannot be seen as anything other than a preemptive crackdown by the state apparatus in the context of a global resurgence of mass struggles by the working class, most starkly shown in Sri Lanka.

Bukele’s popularity, based largely on the lower crime statistics, is becoming increasingly fragile, as his government bows to the national and international financial elites with more than $1.4 billion of scheduled interest payments this year. This amounts to more than three times the budget for public hospitals in the middle of a pandemic.

Any illusion that the Bukele government cares about the safety of the Salvadoran people should be dispelled by the nearly 27,000 people that have died due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more than seven times the official death count, according to a recent study.

The University Observatory of Human Rights (OUDH) declared: “Not every detainee is a gang member; innocent people have been captured.” It reported that the human rights ombudsman had received, as of June, 231 complaints of a refusal to provide the location of a detainee. “These are potential cases of short-term forced disappearances,” the OUDH explained.

The organization Cristosal, moreover, has documented the killing of at least 63 people captured, with many presenting signs of beatings.

On August 9, a group of several hundred relatives of detainees and supporters protested in San Salvador demanding an end to the “arbitrary” arrests and the freeing of the innocent. Relatives insist that detainees “are not being given a chance to demonstrate their innocence.” Many have left behind children without their main source of protection and sustenance.

Cristina de Guevara told Efe, “This is tearing apart the hearts of so many mothers and families who are suffering. In my case, they took my husband, a hard-working and responsible man.”

In one case, Rosa Mejía, a 70-year-old woman, was arrested based on claims that she sold drugs. Two weeks later, a judge set her free, but after eight minutes, the police held the woman and her family at gunpoint and re-arrested her, disregarding the judge’s orders. She pleaded that it would “be better to be murdered” than go back to prison because she was being deprived of food and prescribed medicines. Rosa remains locked away.

The Biden administration has made clear that its restrained criticisms of San Salvador as a “democracy in decline” and corruption allegations are only aimed at coercing Bukele to halt the ongoing rapprochement with China and have nothing to do with his authoritarian measures. In November, the long-time top US diplomat in El Salvador, Jean Mannes stepped down, saying, “Why would I stay here if we don’t have a partner at this time?”

But not only has the US military continued its operations in El Salvador, Washington has explicitly encouraged an even more brutal “war on gangs.” The US Department of Treasury sanctioned several Salvadoran officials last December, alleging that through “covert negotiations” the “Bukele administration provided financial incentives to Salvadoran gangs MS-13 and 18TH Street Gang (Barrio 18) to ensure that incidents of gang violence and the number of confirmed homicides remained low.”

The Bukele government responded in kind, and Washington listened. Bukele’s Defense Minister René Francis Merino Monroy, who was trained at Fort Benning and the US Navy War College and fought with US troops in Iraq, has been the point man of this “war.” As a rather veiled but clear show of support for the well-advanced state of exception, the Pentagon sent a delegation of the New Hampshire National Guard in June to reaffirm its state partnership directly with Merino and meet with the US military group and country team stationed in El Salvador.

The Salvadoran Army used a civil disturbance display by its special security brigade to show off its preparations to protect capitalist rule. In a news briefing by the Southern Command, Maj. Gen. David Mikolaities declared, “El Salvador is a key strategic partner in Latin America. It was really important to reset the relationship. … I can’t wait to see how the next 20 years unfold.” Another US commander said, “It was good to see the different parts of government coming together to support a partner nation.”