Trump's Disaster of Climate Decision

On March 28, flanked by coal miners, President Donald Trump signed into action a plan which he decreed would end the war on coal. A war that's so disastrous and takes so much precedence in the minds of the American people, that it legitimizes repealing President Obama's regulations that placed restrictions on coal mining.  Surely, this must be a day to be proud of our new President, right? It surely is if you work in the coal, oil, or other fossil fuel industries. But for everyone else who has a vague concern for our climate, it's a nightmare. 

The major piece of legislature President Trump has rescinded is the Clean Power Plan, which was forcing US states to reduce their carbon emissions to keep in line with the US' commitments to the Paris Climate agreement. Also, during the president's first trip to the EPA, he signed the Energy Independence Executive Order, which cuts their regulations in order to support President Trump's plan of cutting the agency's budget by a third. There will also be less restrictive regulations regarding methane gas emissions from the oil industry, and more freedom to sell coal from federal lands.

Environmentalists are infuriated by President Trump's actions. They have already declared that they are prepared to fight these repeals in court. Earthjustice, a environmentalist group, said it would challenge the measure in and out of court. "I think it is a climate destruction plan in place of a climate action plan," the Natural Resources Defense Council's David Doniger told the BBC, adding that they will also be taking this matter to court. But, this may not be the best course of action. While these measures will be running the gauntlet of the US legal system, they will still be enforceable, which is just what Trump and Fossil Fuel companies want.

Needless to say, this will cause significant problems for the US if they still wish to meet their COP21 agreements. At this point, President Trump has not officially come out and stated that the US will be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, but while campaigning for the presidency, President Trump argued that what the US pledged to do was ultimately unfair. Also, it is well known that President Trump has said in the past that climate change was a made up thing "created by and for the Chinese". It would not be a shock if he did decide to pull out of the pact. The only comforting fact is that the EU, China, and India have already stated that they plan to continue forward with their climate change commitments even if the US drops. However, considering the US is the largest emitter of CO2, it still is rather disastrous that the US dropping out of COP21 is a real possibility.   

Southern Africa and Natural Disasters

Recently, the Southern African Development Community held a summit in Swaziland to discuss and set up a fund that will be primarily for the use of natural disasters such as droughts, floods cyclones, and insect pets. Many southern African leaders like the Prime minister of Mozambique, Carlos Agostinho do Rosario, have suggested that these nations work together and create a fund that will be available to all member countries in the case of natural disasters. Because many of these nations have experienced natural adversities, this fund will serve as a great source of relief and will benefit the community of southern Africa as a whole. 

In the up and coming year, the Southern African Development Community hopes to gain the necessary funds to help these countries and soon define how member nations will have access to the funds. The southern African region has faced difficulty in responding to the natural disasters. The King of Swaziland, Mswati III, recognized this and has tried to raise resources to aid the 41 million people affected by droughts in the region. 

So far the Southern African Development Community has been able to raise 979 million US dollars from its member nations but unfortunately, this is only 34% of the total amount required to properly aid the people in these regions. Mswati has been a leader in pushing these Southern African nations to contribute more financially to prevent future deficits. He seems to recognize that this fund needs to implemented as soon as possible and present harmonized methods to approaching disaster management. According to the Southern African Development Community, the summit stressed the importance of regional industrialization and how it can benefit not only these nations but the funds used to provide aids in the case of natural disasters. 
The question still remains: will member nations continue to allocate their finances to this fund? If so where will these funds come from considering most have problems within their own governments relating to money and power?

How will POTUS respond to a Disaster?

It has been 60 days since the 45th President of the United States took the oath of office. Since then we have seen numerous allegations, heated arguments, and of course, alternative facts come from the administration. We have seen a lengthy confirmation process for his department heads. We have already seen other world leaders like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and British Prime Minister Theresa May pay a visit to our 45th President. One thing we have yet to seen is how POTUS will respond to a disaster.

Something that has got me thinking is how will POTUS respond to a disaster within our country's border and those abroad. How much aid will he send? How will he work with FEMA to respond to the disasters within the states? These questions are the ones running through my mind as we await our first disaster to occur of this administration. We have seen that he has cut about 20% of foreign aid in his proposed budget. There was a reduction in the State Department's Food for Peace program, which sends food to poor countries hit by war or natural disasters.

So far we have seen POTUS pledge federal assistance for Georgia, Florida, and Alabama after they got hit by severe storms in late January. Nearly two dozen people were left dead after the storms hit the southeastern states. However, the outcome of these storms are no where as near catastrophic as it was with Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy. When a disaster hits of that same magnitude is when we will really see POTUS put to the test.

Will he follow President George W. Bush's failed attempt to adequately respond after the wake of Hurricane Katrina? I feel that this is highly unlikely. I am sure he saw all the criticism that Bush received throughout those times. I am sure he will not nominate someone to serve as the director of FEMA that has experience with disaster relief (unlike Bush's FEMA Director Michael Brown, who worked at the Arabian Horse Association).  The country shouldn't be making the same mistake twice right? Well I hope so.

POTUS has slammed his predecessor many times about how he handled every disaster in his time in office. So it makes you think that our current POTUS will "walk the walk" and do a much better job at responding to disasters than Obama did?

Disaster and Terrorism in Syria

The title alone of Berrebi & Ostwald made me think of the Syrian conflict. Before conflict broke out in 2011 a severe drought stuck Syria from 2006 to 2009. Researchers have also linked this drought to climate change. The Syrian government didn't do much to help those affected by the drought and according to the New York Times article linked bellow, it actually made the drought worse with bad agriculture and water policies. This increased the people's issues with the government which already existed. This drought also led to migrations from rural to urban areas which also raised tensions which came to head in 2011.  According to the article the drought served as a catalyst for the Syrian civil war.  
Arguably, this drought, which led to the Syrian conflict, played a role in the rise of ISIS. As the Berrebi & Ostwald article stated, instability is a breeding ground for terrorism. The rise ISIS was left unchecked since the government was occupied fighting the rebels and were therefore free to expand their territory which in turn increased their wealth, weapons, and personnel. Since Syria was/is unstable due to the civil war, ISIS grew and was able to take control of unstable areas. Furthermore, the instability of the region makes it easier for them to hide and recruit supporters.
Of course, the drought is only a fraction of the cause of the Syrian conflict, however, it did exacerbate the issues and tensions between the government and the people. There were warning signs before the conflict broke out in 2011 which begs the question of why other nations or groups didn't step in. Can anyone step in when they see a country becoming unstable in order to avoid a rise in terrorism? Or will that only create problems when there aren't any yet? Especially for the case in Syria, could could anything have been done? Western countries would've been unlikely to support the Assad regime but changing the government could've easily had disastrous results (i.e.: Libya and Iraq)

NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0

I found this article helpful when trying to figure out the Syrian Conflict:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syrian-civil-war-guide-isis/410746/  

Radioactive Boars in Europe

The Radioactive Boars 

The post of our fellow classmate concerning the population of radioactive boards in Japan had sparked my memory about reading an article on a similar situation in Europe related to Chernobyl and the wild boars.

The striking similarity between northern Japan and certain European countries (such as the Czech Republic) is that the boar is considered a delicacy. In northern Japan, the shishi-niku (wild boar meat) is a winter delicacy featured in a stew known as botan nabe (McLachlan et al. 33). However, the animals were slaughtered due to their radioactivity measuring 300 times higher than safety standards (de Freytas-Tamura "Radioactive Boars in Fukushima Thwarts Residents' Plans to return Home"). Despite decades since Chernobyl, the countries in the region must still be attentive to repercussion of the Caesium 137 on their ecosystems.

The wild boars of the Sumava mountain region that have been feasting on mushrooms that absorbed the radioactive isotope Caesium 137 - which after 30 years fell in its original value with the passing of its half life.  (Jeffery "Pigs Might Fly: Radioactive wild boars are roaming Europe"). Yet, despite falling, the isotope affects and will continue to affect food for years. This includes the boar met used in goulash - a stew of meat, sauce, and dumplings - that is a delicacy in the Czech Republic. The impact of the disaster can still be observed as "614 pigs inspected between 2014 and 2016 were too radioactive" (Becker "Radioactive pigs are wandering Central Europe").The presence of radioactive food sources in the market is a consequence of nuclear disasters that increases vulnerability of populations as they become susceptible to the impact of the hazard. However, steps can be taken to prevent increases in vulnerability that include raising awareness and taking initiative by testing the meat to prevent unnecessary exposure of the population to unsafe meat. The Czech government assures its citizens that radioactive boar meat is not sold and all meat is screened before making its way to the market.

The situation of Chernobyl demonstrates the long-term consequences of a nuclear disaster that await Japan. However, more importantly the political acknowledgement of radioactive wild boars by the Czech government illustrates how organized initiatives can diminish a population's vulnerability to consequences of nuclear disasters even decades after the disaster.

Role of Religion in Foreign Aid

In President Donald Trump's budget proposal for fiscal 2018, he has proposed huge foreign aid cuts. One of the more vocal groups speaking up against Trump's proposed cuts are a group of a hundred or so faith leaders in the United States. To these Christian leaders, it is their moral duty to provide aid to other countries who are in times of struggle. Several faith leaders, including Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and Dr. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, wrote "America is blessed with fertile land, abundant natural resources, a strong economy, and faithful citizens who value religious freedom. But beyond our borders, many countries experience unparalleled suffering and loss of life due to extreme poverty, disease, natural disasters, and conflict". These faith leaders believe that the money the US provides is of great importance for lesser countries capacity to combat violence and terrorism due to environmental degradation and disease.

Supporters of Trump's budget cuts argue that with the US national debt at $20 trillion, the federal government should focus its resources and money on domestic priorities. How will this look to the international public if the US seises to provide aid for struggling countries? According to a 2015 article on CNN, the US spent $35 billion on foreign economic aid in 2014, and that number has only risen since. The US is the biggest contributor of foreign aid in the world, with the Germany and the UK coming in distant second and third. If the US cuts back on its foreign aid, then the whole world is effected. Would other countries step up in terms of contributing foreign aid? Or will no one fill the void left by the US and the amount of foreign aid going to struggling countries would decrease completely?

I found it very interesting that religious leaders are making such an impression on the discourse of foreign aid. They make a compelling argument about the moral duty of the US to help out fellow countries. The Church is a huge source of power on the international stage. If the Church/religious leaders continue to speak on political issues, such as the need for foreign aid provision, the discourse could change completely.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/16/faith-leaders-lobby-congress-against-foreign-aid-cuts.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/us-foreign-aid-report/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/foreign-aid-these-countries-are-the-most-generous/

Temperatures are Rising Down Under

The temperature hikes in Australia during their summer have been unbearable. According to The Sydney Morning Harold, New South Wales (a territory in Australia) has broken it’s sate-wide recorded temperatures for February - not once, but twice. “Before Friday, NSW had never had a February day above 42 degrees, based on averaged maximums in the state, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.” They were at 47.6 degrees Celsius which is 117.68 degrees Fahrenheit. They almost broke the record for hottest atmospheric temperature on terrestrial Earth. 

This is difficult for the people of Australia, infrastructure suffers, sporting events are threatened, and death counts rise. This issue also becomes absolutely devastating and poses an enormous threat to the environment. Unlike some humans who can sit in an air-conditioned room and stave off the effects (though human deaths have occurred) none of the coral surrounding Australia can escape this situation. Coral bleaching cannot be reversed - which is why action must be taken to attempt to stop it in its tracks.

Furthermore, the heat has led to increased bush fires. These fires have led to a massive loss vegetation in addition to the loss of wildlife. Steps can be taken to decrease the incidences of bushfires such as “controlled burning” but the degree of damage that has already been done is astounding.

I am curious about the extent to which Australia is capable of dealing with the repercussions of the heat in its entirety. I am curious even though Australia is a developed and wealthy nation due to the fact that these temperature highs are unprecedented and due to the irreversibility of the effects of coral bleaching. 

In terms of international cooperation - how can other nations be incentivized to care about Australia’s situation?

When is it acceptable to intervene in a developed nations affairs besides when applying the R2P principle? Would this situation be considered an R2P principle? If not, how would the situation need to degrade/what would need to occur to make it so? When, if ever, will R2P or something similar apply to environmental issues?

References:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/16/climate-change-doubled-the-likelihood-of-the-nsw-heatwave-lets-be-clear-this-is-not-natural
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-great-barrier-reef-bleaching-20170317-story.html

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/red-hot-nsw-smashes-february-statewide-heat-records-two-days-in-a-row-20170212-gub14c.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/19/australia-new-normal-47c-climate-change

Landmines Threaten Human Life and Land in South Sudan

Landmines, explosive weapons that are placed under the ground, take two forms based on their intended targets: anti-personnel landmines and anti-vehicle landmines. Civil War in South Sudan has been occurring since 2013, and the predominant use of anti-personnel landmines by South Sudan’s army against rebels has escalated. According to the UN Mine Action Gateway (UNMAS), the employment of landmines as a form of weaponry has been an ongoing trend throughout Sudan and its history of war.

Because the locations of landmines are oftentimes unknown and no hint of present explosives exists, the active mines produce hazards to the safety of local populations. Forced migrations influence ethnic and religious conflict as language barriers escalate and disputes over land rights and ownership persist. In addition, access to education for youth is hindered. UNMAS noted how although “less than half of South Sudan’s children attend school” (par 2), the existing school sites have been targeted by armed conflict. One example is of how in the Pochalla, Jonglei region in South Sudan, a woman discovered that an undetonated landmine contaminated the area near a school. Lack of safety and fear of pre-existing landmines act as driving factors that hinder progressive growth in South Sudan’s education. UNMAS recognizes the interconnectedness between war, politics, social factors, and the environment. With the help of funding from the UN Peacekeeping budget and Japan, the organization strives to provide humanitarian assistance while protecting civilians.

However, in addition to threatening the safety and livelihoods of the South Sudanese people, landmines also present hazards to the land. According to A. A. Berhe’s study of landmines and their effects on land degradation, South Sudan has some of the most severe landmines in the world.

The fact that the exact number of active landmines does not exist hinders strategies of creating safer environments. But, which is safer: a land where landmines remain active and untouched, or a land where landmines are removed and possibly detonated?

Removing landmines can be hazardous, as the process closes off local access to the affected land. In turn, access to resources are prohibited or limited. The lack of resources has the potential to harm the socioeconomic livelihoods of those who are affected, because of forced migrations and loss of income. When working to remove landmines, vegetation and plants are also removed.

On the other hand, leaving landmines undetonated contributes to the loss of biodiversity. Berhe explains how vegetation and plants begin to deteriorate. Animals are at risk of dying because of their limited access to food sources as well as their ability to set off the mines. The long time that landmines remain in the ground also allow for chemical contamination of soil. Additionally, access to the limited supplies of water in South Sudan is hindered. UNMAS noted how “just 41% of South Sudan has access to safe water”. Out of these sources, water wells have been constant targets of landmines.

Overall, the environmental and humanitarian risks that landmines pose to civilians increase hazards that negatively influence socioeconomic hazard and quality of life. When sources of income are harmed, a lack of self-sufficiency persists, and an increase in dependency on aid continues.

Where do we go from here? It seems that there are losses with both possible options: leaving landmines undetonated or attempting to deactivate them. Where do we start and who’s responsibility is it to get involved and provide aid?