Clean Energy Revolution?

Nuclear energy has been declining for the past ten years and as alarming as the numbers are, there does not seem to be any pressure from actors to reverse the trend. Germany has announced its plan to shut down its nuclear reactors, Japan is scarred from Fukushima, and India cannot produce as many plants as they promised in Paris. If these trends stay true, by 2050 the world could lose four times more clean energy than we lost over the last ten years. With this in mind, there is little hope that we will meet our carbon emission goals unless other "wedges" pick up serious slack (Socolow and Glaser).  

Why is nuclear experiencing waning support? Three reasons: 1) the concern of the safety of plants, 2) the concern over what to do with nuclear waste, and 3) the fear that nuclear energy translates to nuclear weapons. 

Opinions of the safety of plants have been severely tainted by the few disasters there have been; Fukushima, Chernobyl, and the Three-Mile Island are the most notable and extreme disasters. However, what is rarely mentioned is that these disasters were avoidable if just a few more precautions were taken. These disasters were not caused by the plants, they were caused by human error and deficient safety culture. 

Nuclear waste is another issue that is consistently brought up when talk of building a new plant. There is a lot of fear concerning radiation from waste or the possibility that the plutonium could be harnessed for terrorist purposes. However, the amounts of high-level waste (the most radioactive and dangerous waste) is incredibly small. Each year worldwide there is only enough waste to fill up a hundred double-decker buses, which is very modest compared to other industrial waste. 

Lastly, the best way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use uranium for nuclear energy. It is not a crazy idea and although it is hard to change the beliefs of millions, it is not impossible. Nuclear energy does not translate to nuclear weapons.

We need to find a way to bring up global demand for nuclear energy if we hope to decrease emissions in the next thirty years. And if the world is just not ready for nuclear energy, which seems to be the case, then there needs to be serious strides in other forms of clean energy. I think it is important for us to ask, "Why is oil more popular than nuclear?"

.https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment

Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

 Disasters occur all the time in many different places all over the world. How rich or poor a country is does not affect how many disasters occur (Stromberg 2007) . However, there are many other factors that do affect how a country is able to manage the disaster. There are also many factors that can cause a disaster to be worse. These things can make a disasters more complex and are considered complex humanitarian emergencies. United Nations defines a CHEs as “a humanitarian crisis in a country, region, or society where there is total or considerable breakdown of authority resulting from internal or external conflict and which requires an international response that goes beyond the mandate or capacity of any single and/or ongoing UN country program.” Basically, they are acute emergencies in regions with ongoing emergencies. When these emergencies occur a state's sovereignty is ignored and other countries and NGOs intervene for the sake of the people living there.  

The conflict and instability in these counties are made worse by famine, drought, and other natural disasters. For example the country, Yemen, has been plagued by instability for years. There is also scarce resources and droughts throughout the country. The combination of these problems along with rise of conflict in the region and the amount of displaced peoples, makes this a complex humanitarian emergency. 

The UN created a protocol for these kinds of emergencies. It starts with an assessment of what is needed and ends with helping coordinate aid groups. However, there are limited resources and only so much can be done. These emergencies occur in many different regions at the same time. This makes it hard to give full attention and resources to each emergency. Also, these emergencies are usually ongoing. It seems like the problems in these regions never becomes resolved and most of people in the regions have no choice but to flee. The UN and NGOs do what they can to try to resolve CHEs but sometimes the conflict is so bad in areas aid does not reach the people in need. Aid workers have been kicked out of countries while trying to help. Aid workers do not want to make situations worse in the country and states do not want to send the wrong messages.   

Because there are so many complex humanitarian emergencies, decisions have to be made about which crises will receive the most aid and attention. How is this decided if regions have the equal amount of need? Is the help giving decided by public? Do the protocols in place even make a difference in these regions?  

Locust Disaster Swarm and the Extreme Drought

Bolivia is currently in the middle of dealing with a devastating amount of locusts. The authorities estimate more than 1,000 hectares (2,471 acres) of agricultural land have been devastated by the flying insects (BBC). Officials say the swarm first appeared just under three weeks ago, about 60 miles south of the eastern city of Santa Cruz. Since then, it has spread at an alarming rate and is now about 18 miles from Bolivia's largest city.

Something to understand is that locusts are not new to the nation. In fact, they are widely expected to appear. What made this swarm far worse than previous ones is the drought Bolivia is currently experiencing. The Latin American country has been forced to declare a state of emergency as it faces its worst drought in at least 25 years. Much of the water supply to La Paz, the highest capital city in the world, and El Alto, Bolivia’s second largest city, comes from the glaciers in the Andean mountains. But those glaciers are shrinking at an alarming rate, showing the world once again how climate change is affecting one of the poorest countries in Latin America. The SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute) informs us that, “Glaciers are estimated to provide 20% to 28% of water for El Alto and La Paz. Therefore glacier loss will have a considerable impact, which will be felt particularly during the dry season, when glacial water provides the majority of urban water" (Rocha).

Locusts begin to form during the dry season, once all of the plant life has all died and the grasshoppers have begun to run out of food. When the new locusts swarm forms, it will travel up to 100 miles a day in search of its next meal. While this is a miraculous number in it of itself, we need to remember that the reason why they are traveling is because they have eaten all of the vegetation around them. This will have a large impact on the surrounding area, causing their harvest to diminish even more than with just the drought. “Take a swarm the size of Manhattan,” said Keith Cressman, a senior locust forecasting officer at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome (For reference, Manhattan is 14,600 acres). “In one day, that swarm will eat the same amount of food as 42 million people,” (ABC News). So what can the people of Bolivia do? At this point, it doesn't seem like much can be done. Spraying pesticides could stop the locust swarm, but it doesn't help to restore the crops that are already lost because of them, or the lack of water the country has due to climate change. Not only that, they don't have the resources to do much on their own, causing them to rely on the generosity of other nations. Perhaps most unfortunate, is that this does not seem to be a one time crisis. The glaciers will continue to shrink, droughts will more than likely continue, and locusts will become a larger issue than before. So I ask you: What can be done at this point to prevent this from happening again?

Brexit and the Environment

After being in the European Union for decades, the Britain left in 2016. While tensions are still high with uncertainty in Europe thanks to this event, another reason to worry has sprung up: the natural environment in Britain. When it was a member, Britain would be forced to uphold its part in environmental regulations by European Institutions, like the Court of Justice, and other member states. This kept Britain to keep its part of the world clean. 

Brexit is one of the things that allow British politicians to be negligent towards environmental policies. The government plans to essentially transfer European Union environmental laws to its statute books. This would be done via the Great Repeal Act. According to the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, this will not be an easy task. If British political talk patterns are followed, legislative action is most likely not going to focus on the environment and strike a different issue. 

Environmental advocates like ClientEarth may be taking the British government to court in order to get things rolling along. However, the power vacuum left behind by the absence of the European Commission will prolong the necessary individuals needed to initiate environmental protection and regulation. It seems that the British government may use this absence of power to possibly make things much more lax in terms of things like chemicals or the hormones in livestock, which can all directly or indirectly cause damage to the environment. While the future is still hazy, the impending danger to the British environment and the possible effects it will have to its neighbors globally is a concern.

European Union Environmental Policy Factsheet

Source Links:

Independent 

The Guardian

British Broadcasting Corporation 

The River Nile Basin

The Nile Basin Initiative is a governmental partnership of consisting of countries: Burundi, DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, The Sudan and Tanzania. According to their website, the NBI's objective is to "ensure efficient water management and the optimal use of resources, ensure cooperation and joint action between riparian countries, and to provide results from planning to action." It also concentrates on a forum for consultation and coordination among the Basin States for the sustainable management and development of the shared Nile water and related resources for win-win benefits.

Egypt's relationship with the NBI has fallen into rocky times. In 2010, the country froze its participation with the NBI. Last July after careful consideration, it made a partial return to the partnership. Recently, Egypt has disagreed with some of the NBI's agreements. Most notably, the country declined to sign an agreement that requires members “not to significantly affect the water security of any other Nile Basin States.” Egypt argued that they had "historic rights to use the Nile River and those rights where not taken into consideration by the NBI's Cooperative Framework Agreement treaty. Because 95% of Egypt's population lives along the banks and the Nile accounts for nearly all of Egypt's drinking an irrigation water, it is important that Egypt is still a participating member in the NBI and the NBI listen to the concerns of this country. In 2015, Egypt signed a declaration to address and resolve their concerns with the CPA treaty and to the sharing of the Nile water, giving priority to downstream countries for electricity generated by the counties dams while providing compensation for any damages.

Unfortunately, the Nile River Basin has been facing multiple natural hazards in the form of floods and droughts as a result of climate and weather changes. The wetlands in these areas are supposed to supply water for both domestic and commercial use and provide food including fish and wild plants.  Because of human activity they have been fragmented and degraded. The continued destruction of these wetlands compromises the health of those who live in these surrounding areas. The NBI has stated that they are committed to working for the maintenance of healthy wetlands and the restoration of degraded wetlands. 

The Nile Basin Initiative clearly has many steps that it must take in order to improve these wetlands and prevent the degradation of the basin. Questions still arise, because of the NBI's failed attempt to get other nations involved. What will the NBI do in the future to prevent other countries like Egypt from leaving the initiative? How will they prevent future degradation of the wetlands? Will there be regulations put into place by member countries to hold each other accountable for the degradation of these wetlands? 

How should we classify disasters with positive results as well?

Recently, there have been flash floods and torrential downpours in South America. This water has especially affected Peru and Bolivia. In Bolivia, rivers near Cochabamba have overflowed and houses have been displaced. In Peru, the torrential rains have affected many small communities and a number of serious injuries have even resulted according to the source Al Jazeera. Many blame these floods on El Nino, a year long series of extreme weather patterns. While El Nino is definitely a factor to consider it is important to not neglect climate change and its effects on weather patterns and therefore disaster throughout the world.

In an unlikely twist this disastrous situation had a few positive results. Peru, and specifically northern Peru have been in the midst of a intensive drought which has affected crop production, safe water access and much more. The heavy rains brought much needed rain to the area and created a situation where agriculture become a viable option once again. A non profit in the area, MOCHE, says that the rains destroyed clean drinking water sources but also added valuable moisture to the current crops. This begs the question if disasters should still be considered disasters if they have positive results? Should there be a measurement system in place to weigh the negative and positives and at a certain point does it even matter if it is classified as a disaster if disastrous events are occurring as a result. 

David Stromberg, a researcher and professor at the University of Stockholm identifies three factors that go into the decision of whether an event is a disaster or not. These classifications include population exposed to the event, the vulnerability of that population, and the triggering of the natural hazard event. In addition to these factors, it would be interesting to examine and look at how positives results of an event such as this flooding influence the choice to classify it as a disaster or not.

The Impending Doom: Saltwater Intrusion

The Atlantic Coast of the United States is home to many people, popular tourist attractions, and much more. Over 112.6 million people live here. That is roughly 35% of the United State's population. However, the Eastern Seaboard of the United States is home to many underground aquifers that supply fresh water to the people living in this area.

Aquifers are underground layers of rock that contain fresh water. Just think an enormous water tank underneath massive cities like New York City, D.C., and Miami. Of course, with the increase of population comes comes an increase of water consumption from these aquifers. If so much water is pumped out of these aquifers, they can run dry and no water could be removed until it is replenish. This replenishing process can take quite some time, hundreds or even thousands of years.

Source: https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/saltwater/salt.html#fig2

Something worse could happen to the aquifers and that is saltwater intrusion. Saltwater intrusion is the process of salt water moving into the fresh water of the aquifers. Once the saltwater intrudes into these fresh water supplies, then that aquifer is unusable, leaving everyone that depends on them without a source of easily accessible fresh water.

Source: http://www.miamiandbeaches.com/places-to-see/downtown-miami

One of the most vulnerable aquifers that is facing this impending doom is the Biscayne Aquifer in South Florida. This aquifer provides water to 5.8 million residents in South Florida and the Florida Keys. Just imagine if saltwater were to intrude into this aquifer the disaster that would take place in this area. As sea level continues to rise, this problem will continue to get worse.

Luckily, there is a plan in place to prevent this disaster from happening. It is a costly plan, $4.1 billion. The plan includes replacing a 100-year-old reverse osmosis plant in the city of Hialeah, building another osmosis plant in the southern part of the county and shutting down five small well fields. The Department of Miami-Dade County Sewer and Water Mobility hope to use the osmosis plants to be able to draw water from the Floridan Aquifer that lies 3,000 feet underneath area, but filled with brackish water. 

We are always worried about the water shortages in other countries. We fail to realize that major areas in the U.S. are on the verge of having a major water crisis.

Survival in Exchange for Jihad

Ecological disasters and climate change have the power to exacerbate the emergence of radical extremism and violence in territories that are at risk of suffering from drought and desertification. In Nigeria, drought has provided opportunities for the extremist group, Boko Haram, to recruit locals who are desperate to survive and who search for new and prosperous livelihoods. In an Africa Review article titled “Climate Change Fuels Nigeria Terrorism,” Emmanuel Mayah communicates how after an arrest of the organization’s leader Abu Qaqa along with more than 70 of its members, “it was discovered that the majority of Boko Haram’s fighters were not religious fundamentalists as portrayed to the public and had no knowledge of basic verses in the Quran” (Mayah 2). Instead, many of the soldiers were vulnerable to economic insecurity and starvation as a result of their displacement from the recurring periods of drought in the western Sahel region of Africa.

With disappearing sources of water, dying livestock, and insufficient harvests, migration of local citizens across borders in search of sustenance and adequate livelihoods persists. The Lake Chad basin, bordered by Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Chad “has shrunk by 90 per cent in just 50 years owing to poor rains and its drainage for irrigation” (Coghlan 2). On July 27, 2016, a “Security Council Briefing on the Situation in the Lake Chad Basin Region” took place at the United Nations. Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman conveyed the necessity of recognizing the significance of taking a bottom-up approach towards restoring safety and security to citizens who have been affected by Boko Haram’s presence in West Africa. As he acknowledged The Second Regional Security Summit for the Lake Chad Basin that took place on May 14^th, 2016, he summarized how “the Summit took note of the negative consequences of climate change, affecting livelihoods of those dependent on Lake Chad, in particular youth” and how “the Summit urged the concerned countries and partners to support the restoration of Lake Chad as part of a strategy to combat Boko Haram” (Feltman 16). The vanishing of Lake Chad has increased terrorist recruitments, disrupted local trade, contributed to economic instability and food insecurity, and intensified the desperation for survival.

The interconnectedness of climate change, natural disasters, and the rise of radical insurgencies must be recognized and addressed. However, what responsibility does the international community have to combat drought in the Lake Chad region? How have migrants been received in neighboring areas? In what ways can Lake Chad be renewed? And will the restoration of the Lake Chad basin guarantee peace and higher rates of stability in the territory?

What "President Donald Trump" Means for the Environment

Donald Trump’s presidency threatens countless issues, but efforts to stop climate change cannot afford to be roped into the mix. The newest US president’s opinion on the environment is no secret; Donald Trump has clearly stated he has plans to eliminate environmental regulations that help slow climate change. With motives speculated to stem from his own business and personal ties whilst infamously denouncing global warming as a "hoax" manufactured by the Chinese, Trump’s controversial stance on the environment does not bode well for our planet over the next four years.

            Justin Worland from Time magazine reports even current climate change legislation is under threat, with President Trump “working with Congress to undo a slew of rules implemented under former President Barack Obama.” Trump has already taken authoritative action on both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines under heavy governmental and public scrutiny, though he seems undeterred by voices of reason. His lack of concern for the environment is extremely troubling, and public sources are already urging Trump to keep current climate change legislation enacted. The Hill pleads the 45th president to "maintain this country's commitments" Obama signed, such as the critical Paris Agreement of 2015. In addition, they ask President Trump to support the EPA's Clean Power Plan and invite more transparency into future actions regarding the environment. With "a great opportunity to save our environment," and the whole world looking to the United States' newest leader, The Hill and general public agrees it now falls heavily on President Trump to act rationally and in the best interest of the environment. 

         My question is if Donald Trump fails to support the slowing of climate change, will other nations follow suit? Will the World Environmental Organization we mentioned in class be forced to arise as a result? More so, when a natural disaster occurs sometime in the next four years (which is almost a given), what will the United States’ response look like under President Trump? The amount of aid, supplies, and volunteer relief America supplies to the country in need will set the stage for new response norms and political relations, not to mention impact issues of forced migration. These are key issues we must be aware of as Trump’s presidency takes hold, and though he, his Cabinet, and his pocketed politicians may ignore global warming’s looming threat, it is our responsibility to stay vigilant over the next four years.