The year 2020 marks the beginning of a new decade. The world as we see today has risen from the ashes of Global Financial Crisis of late 2000s and the hegemony of a few developed countries. The global economic and political landscape has endured a number of changes over the past decade- Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the Arab Spring of 2011, the rise and fall of ISIS, Refugee crisis sparked by people fleeing war persecution and poverty, the Ebola pandemic, European Sovereign Debt Crisis of 2012, BREXIT, discovery and commercialization of Shale in the USA, trade rivalry between the two behemoths- USA and China, China’s debt diplomacy through One Belt One Road (OBOR), Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 and the American fall out.
Of all the themes that gripped the world in the recent memory, none deserves more attention than the spectre of a world ravaged by excesses of human greed and neglect of environment. The burning of Amazon rainforests and vast swathes of forests turning to ashes in Australia once again reminded the world of the pertinent need to focus on the challenge of climate change. More recently, the threat of a giant locust storm from the Horn of Africa to the farmlands in India is gripping the Eastern hemisphere. Studies have linked higher temperatures and higher than usual rainfall with more damaging locust swarms. According to Food and Agriculture Organisation, a square km sized swarm contains about 40 million locusts which eat as much food in one day as about 35,000 people. This threat to food security due to climate effect should send the alarm bells ringing in the high and mighty corridors of world powers. This article is an attempt to trace out the contribution and preparedness of comity of nations to deal with the challenges of climate change in terms of policy and the economic cost of not acting while we still have a chance at saving the humanity from the ferocity of nature.
The Earth’s temperature is maintained by an envelope of gases that traps the heat from the sun. However, when the concentration of these greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, the heat budget goes hay-wire and the temperature starts to rise. The heightened temperatures can lead to melting of ice caps, rise in sea levels, flooding of coastal cities (some of the world’s dense metropolitan areas are located on coasts), decline in soil productivity, fall in food production, increased pest attacks, increase in pathogen-related diseases, extreme weather events, desertification, famines, epidemics and the list goes on. As the world is under the biggest ever lockdown due to COVID-19, the global community is struggling with crippling economies, and the writing on the wall is clear- the world is not prepared for such pandemics. An apposite question to ask here is, are we ready for the forthcoming challenges posed by climate change? Do we really have a feasible action plan in place to address the current and future challenges awaiting us?
In the 20th century, climate was neither the priority of developed nor the developing nations. Focus was on turning the wheels of economic growth as fast as possible. Climate change first made its entry in the global parlance as late as the 1970s. The UN Conference on Human Environment 1972, popularly known as the First Earth Summit, laid out the principles concerning environment and development and raised the issue of climate change for the first time. The First Scientific World Climate Conference was held in 1979 which eventually led to the creation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The Second Scientific World Climate Conference 1990 considered the IPCC first assessment report highlighting the risk of climate change which paved the way for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Second Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Enforcement of UNFCCC in 1994 formalised the climate change negotiations at the world level and from here began the string of Conference of Parties meetings with the latest being held in Madrid, Spain in 2019. Alongside the climate change negotiations, need for sustainable development has also caught the attention of the world leaders with the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002, Rio+20 summit in 2012. The Brundtland Commission’s conception of sustainable development in 1987 marked a comprehensive shift in viewing development and environment as complements to one another.
Though the scientific community highlighted the challenge of climate change late with the passage of more than a century since the industrial revolution, the world economies and leaders haven’t yet woken up from their slumber, notwithstanding an entire gamut of conferences and meetings mentioned above. The world has been pumping in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ignoring the climate cost of growth.
The Kyoto Protocol was considered to be the ‘star’ agreement of the negotiations imposing binding emission reduction target of 5 percent below the 1990 levels over the 5-year period of 2008-12 on three-six industralised countries and the European Union. The Doha amendment of 2012 extended the commitment period to 2020. However, the year 2020 is here and only 137 parties have ratified against the requirement of 144 for the amendment to come into existence. This highlights the lax attitude of the world leaders to the challenge of climate change.
The climate scientists heaved a sigh of relief with the signing of Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, with both the North and the South coming together to contribute towards emissions reduction according to their ability laid out in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). However, the NDCs fall way short of achieving the target of limiting the global temperature rise to below 2 degree Celsius (preferably below 1.5 degree Celsius) above the pre-industrial levels by 2100. With the withdrawal of USA, the second largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world, the resolve of Paris Agreement has come under serious doubt.
The Earth is already 1.1 degree Celsius warmer compared to preindustrial times. As per the data of World Meteorological Organisation, 2019 was the second hottest year after 2016, and every decade since 1980s has become warmer than the previous one. Average temperatures for 2014-19 were the highest on record. According to WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas, we are well on our path to a 3-5 degree Celsius rise in temperatures by end of century with the current rate of emissions.
The economic cost of climate change has been hard to grasp for the world at large. According to a Working paper published by National Bureau of Economic Research in 2019, a continued increase in average global temperatures by 0.04 degree Celsius per year under “business as usual” approach can reduce global GDP per capita by as much as 7.22% by 2100. The hardest hit would be the least developed countries of tropics and no country would gain economically from global warming. As per World Bank, an additional 100 million people worldwide are at the risk of being pushed into poverty by 2030 due to climate change. Climate disasters also extract a cost in terms of damage to infrastructure such as road transportation and power generation to the tune of $18 billion annually in low and middle-income countries, with wider disruptions to households and firms costing atleast $390 billion a year. According to a WHO Report on Health in 2018, health complications due to air pollution in 15 countries that emit the most greenhouse gases are estimated to cost more than 4% of their GDP. Air pollution causes 7 million deaths globally annually, costing $5.1 trillion in welfare losses.
The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown at us first-of-many challenges of this century, wherein it has become pertinent for us to introspect the question “growth at the cost of what?”. As we continue to expand and encroach into fragile ecological regions of the planet in quest for growth, we are increasingly putting the health of our ecosystem in jeopardy. While Covid-19 has caught the world unawares and severely crippled its health infrastructure with more than 2 lakh deaths and counting, climate change is a hidden enemy lurking behind these ever often pandemics- earlier it was Ebola and now Covid-19. Failure to address climate change will threaten human lives, livelihood, and ecosystem in an unprecedented manner.
As countries plan to restart their economies post the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s time to channelize our resources to ‘building back better’. While rebuilding lives and creating livelihoods, the economic stimulus needs to focus on supporting sustainable business and personal practices. Air pollution levels have fallen across the major industrial cities of the world in the wake of the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, there is a need to sustain this in the post-pandemic world. The nature is rebounding when the humans have retreated from the streets. Therefore, there is a need to devise sustainable strategies- be it work-from-home for the majority or giving up plastics or commuting on public transport. Every individual effort counts.
Building Back Better: The new normal development path
Global stock markets such as Footsie, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nikkei has decreased the profit since the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic in early 2020. Dow Jones fell to its lowest point, minus 35%, in April 2020 (Bloomberg, 4/27/2020). In US, more than 1 in 4 workers have lost their jobs since the coronavirus crisis shut down much of the economy in March.(National Public Radio, 28/3/2020).
Even the trend of Covid-19 death case has decrease, but still worried. Will the second wave happen? Because of that a new normal order is needed, when the spread of the pandemic stops and then the economy returns to normal.
There are at least two potential scenarios for the recovery of the economic crisis which were affected by Covid-19. The first scenario, gross domestic product will be pushed in such a way as to make the economy grow faster. By stimulating consumption, investment, government spending, and commodity exports. At the same time, industrialization will grow stronger than the pre-Covid-19 conditions.
Environmental conditions that had improved during the emergence of Covid-19 might be polluted again. Carbon emissions are predicted to rise into the air, to pre-Covid-19 levels, and will even be higher than before. This is what is called the “revenge pollution” phenomenon. Like the recession and the global financial crisis in 2008, which is comparable to the scale of the crisis impact of the Pandemic Covid-19, even in very different kinds. Governments in the world responded with an economic rescue package and a stimulus worth by billions of USD. But in the last decade, greenhouse gas emissions have increased.
China has a real precedent. In response to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Chinese government launched a USD 586 billion stimulus package focused on massive infrastructure projects. That is why China’s industry has grown rapidly over the years. But for the environmental impact, their emission levels increased. Known as “airpocalypse” as the worst smog in city centers, such as Beijing in the winter of 2012 and 2013.
Besides, the world also creates a level of inequality that is far greater than that seen since the Second World War. The world shows a very striking difference between the super-rich and the very poor in terms of health, job security, education and other matters. As stated by Oxfam (2017), the wealth of 1% of the rich is equal to the combined wealth of 99% of the world’s population.
Then the second scenario, where we depart from the revenge pollution precedent after 2008. Pandemics give opportunities, when the economy back to begin normally and new rules, there is an opportunity to make the impossible to possible – or the last ignored things can be applied. This is the best time for the green agenda includes in the order that we want to renew.
Oxford University recently published an interesting study related to the global crisis recovery plan, entitled “Building back better: Green COVID-19 recovery packages will boost economic growth and stop climate change.” The focus of the research is to compare between green stimulus projects with traditional stimulus, such as the taken steps after the 2008 global financial crisis. The researchers found that, green projects create more work, provide higher short-term returns, and lead to long-term increased cost savings.
In economic development, to quickly recover from the crisis, the Government needs projects, which is called by experts with the term ‘shovel ready’ infrastructure projects. It exceeds labor-intensive projects, it also does not need high-level skills or extensive training, and gives profitable infrastructure for the economy. An example is the clean energy infrastructure, which produces twice as much work as a fossil fuel project.
We can see the need for bicycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure in cities. Then build a broadband internet network connection, because online systems for schools and work will be used massively. And the network for charging electric vehicles. Therefore, in the future we will definitely need more electricity. It also needs mass projects for solar, wind and biogas power plants.
According to WRI (2017), the main sources of global greenhouse gas emissions are electricity (31%), agriculture (11%), transportation (15%), forestry (6%) and manufacturing (12%). All types of energy production contribute 72% of all emissions. The energy sector is the most dominant factor causing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s how our lives are still dependent on fossil energy in the “old normal”. “New normal” should be able to replace old energy sources with renewable energy.
In April 2020, EU Ministers of environment launched “The European Green Deal” as the point of the post Covid-19 recovery process. At least 100 billion Euros were mobilized during the 2021-2027 period in the most affected regions for investment in environmentally friendly technology, decarbonate energy sector, and other new green norms.
CEOs of large companies such as Ikea, H&M and Danone have signed commitments representing the private sector in this alliance. The Contracting Parties understand that the fight against climate change is the point of Europe’s new economic policy, with an emphasis on renewable energy, zero emissions and new technology. This should be an example for the world in crisis recovery from the impact of the Corona virus pandemic. There is an opportunity to redesign a sustainable and inclusive economy.
In the Paris Agreement 2015, countries in the world have agreed to responsible for reducing the impact of climate change, with different portions and capabilities.The target is quite high, the world must reduce emissions by more than 45% if global warming is limited to 1.5 °C. Without the great new adaptation, the goals won’t be achieved easily.
Of IMF’s Debt Trap and Chinese Debt Peonage
With the mandate of fostering global monetary corporations, securing financial stability, facilitating international trade, promoting high employment and sustainable growth, and reducing poverty around the world, IMF formally came into existence in 1945 at Bretton Wood conference. Ever since its inception, the fund has been under severe criticism by economic luminaries, celebrated academicians, and the enlightened political scientists belonging to different parts of world exclusively to the third world countries.
For many observers, the problems of the fund are congenital; Bretton Wood produced a deformed infant and a little has been done through the years to overcome such deformities. The assertion is often made the fund was created by and for industrial countries with no concern for the developing countries. Much of the criticism on fund revolves around the conditions attached to its lending facility.
According to well-versed economists, when the fund prescribes austerity to the recipient country, the health budgets are cut down, children are forced to leave schools and the workers are thrown out of work. Education and health sectors suffer the worst consequences of IMF’s prescribed austerity drive. IMF with utter disregard to domestic affairs of the host country prescribes its own recipe to cure the ills of borrowing economy.
It dispatches a team to assess the economy of the host country, measure its performance, and to recommend corrective measures and remedial actions; of what Joseph Stieglitz– a former World Bank chief economist famously scorned as second-rate economists from first-rate universities–says, “They are well-meaning people and I am sure they want to help. But their visits are painful reminders of riots in Bolivia, Indonesia, and strikes in Nigeria…”
Another renowned economist Jeffery Sachs argues that the IMF’S “usual prescription is budgetary belt-tightening to the countries who are too poor to buy such belts”. Furthermore, it reminds me the prophetic words of Harry White former assistant to Secretary of the U.S treasury who once said “I don’t think the fund should butt into every country’s business and say “we don’t like this or that”.
Moreover, for the developing country like Pakistan, the IMF prescriptions are force-fed and according to one economist, we have to swallow the IMF prescribed medicine because we have no other choice. He adds that some of the recommendations of the fund are like a doctor stemming the bleeding of your arm by stopping your heart. Thus, such prescription incompatible with the domestic market of the borrowing country does not bear any fruit. It rather redoubles the difficulties for the host country to cope with its socio-economic challenges.
In addition, there is also a widespread perception in developing countries that by giving its own program, the fund entraps the borrowing country and thereby penetrates deep into its economic system. The fund’s undue intervention in the country’s internal economic dispensation results in economic chaos and uncertainty. The policymakers are therefore unable to craft economic programs in accordance with requirements of the home economy. Consequently, the country is forced to surrender its economic independence and financial sovereignty.
Another allegation leveled against the IMF is that it is a tool of U.S foreign policy that furthers its strategic and economic interests.
Being the only nation with an outright veto helps Washington sway decisions to its benefits. The U.S, therefore, exploits the fund to lure the borrowing country into a debt trap and thereby makes it as its lackey. Such entrapment helps U.S advance her imperialist agenda and meet her global interests. This can be plainly grasped in our relations with the fund, whose pockets are generous to us when we serve the interests of the U.S as it happened after 9/11 and penny-pinching otherwise.
The undue clout of Washington on IMF has raised many questions on its credibility. Rightly did Lord Keynes describe the views of America on the future of IMF. He wrote in 1944, before Bretton Wood Conference. “In their eyes, the fund should have wide discretionary and policing powers and should exercise something of the same measure of the grandmotherly influence and control over the central banks of the member countries, that these central banks, in turn, are accustomed to exercise control over the other banks of their own countries”… this is how the game to control the economy of the borrowing country is played by U.S in cahoots with IMF.
It seems that China too is following the footprints of IMF. It is employing the same tactics to create its global hegemony as that of the U.S. by using its heavy influence on IMF. It has been keenly observed by political cognoscenti and leading defense analysts that China is colonizing smaller countries by lending them massive amounts of money that they can never repay. The country is accused of leveraging massive loans it holds over small states worldwide to snatch their assets and increase its military footprints.
Developing countries from Pakistan to Djibouti, the Maldives to Fiji all owe huge amounts to China. There are examples of many defaulters being pressured into surrendering control of their assets or allowing military basis on their land. This move of China is being dubbed by its detractors as “debt-trap diplomacy” or debt colonialism- offering enticing loans to countries unable to repay and then demanding concessions when they default. Sri Lanka provided a prime example of last year.
Owing more than $1 billion in debts to China, Sri Lanka was forced to hand over Hambantota port to the companies owned by the Chinese government on a 99 years lease. And Djibouti, home to US military base in Africa, also looks likely to cede control of a port terminal to a Beijing-linked firm. Apart, America is eager to stop the Doraleh container terminal falling into Chinese hands, particularly because it sits next to China’s only overseas military base.
While commenting on the Chinese debt- trap diplomacy, Rex Tillerson said” Bejing encouraged “dependency using opaque contracts, predatory loan practices, and corrupt deals that mire nations in debt and undercut their sovereignty”.
Additionally, China’s debt empire has also been rearing its head in the Pacific, prompting fears the country intends to leverage the debt to expand its military footprint into south pacific. Beijing’s creation of man-made islands in the disputed South China Sea for use as military bases suggests the concern may be warranted.
Another case worth mentioning here is of Tonga. It also carries some big debts and is struggling hard for the repayment. Tonga’s Prime Minister, Akilisi Pohvia voiced his concerns saying that Beijing was planning to seize assets from his country. Inter alia, a report from the Center for Global Development offers some insight into spreading China debt. It depicts that the infrastructure project loans to the likes of Magnolia, Montenegro, and Laos have resulted in millions or even billions in debts, which often account for huge percentages of countries’ GDPs.
Many of these projects are linked to the belt and road initiative- a bold project to create trade routes through the swathes of Eurasia, with China at the center. Mahathir Mohammad, the Malaysian Prime Minister while talking to press expressed his reservations about Chinese investment in the following words” We welcome foreign direct investment from anywhere certainly from China. But when it involves giving contracts to China, borrowing huge sums of money from China- and Chinese contractors prefer to use their own workers from China, use everything imported from China even payment is made in China. So we gain nothing at all”.
Therefore, Pakistan in dealing with both IMF and China must remain cautious so that it might neither fall prey to Chinese debt peonage nor to IMF’s debt trap. It may not be possible in case of IMF because a beggar cannot be a chooser while in case of engagement with China, we need to maintain caution and outline our own rules of engagement based on monitoring, evaluating, and allowing discussions to weigh the pros and cons of each and every development project.
Armenia’s inability to solve pandemic-related economic problems
According to data from the Armenian government, in 2019 the country’s economy grew by about 7.6%,which was the highest figure since 2008. Further data from the Statistical Committee of Armenia show that the trade and service sectors were the main drivers of economic development. In the same period, 9% growth in industrial output and a 4% reduction in agricultural output were also recorded. Inspired by these growth numbers, during a cabinet meeting in January, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that he was confident that, as a result of the joint efforts of government members, even higher figures will be registered in 2020. However, as a result of subsequent pandemic-related events, his confidence disappeared and difficulties in solving economic problems have proven the inability of the Armenian government to act independently.
Since the declaration of an emergency situation on March 16, economic activity has significantly slowed, thus leading to the creation of various economic problems and a financial deficit. Even though some restrictions were softened in May, that did not lead to a noticeable increase in economic activity. As a result, the economic forecasts for Armenia in 2020 worsened. According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the economy of Armenia will contract by about3.5% in 2020 as a result of global uncertainty and falling demand. However, the Armenian government is more optimistic in its prediction of a decline in GDP of 2%.
One of the main problems created by the pandemic-related economic restrictions is the impossibility of implementation of government-approved budget projects for 2020. As the forecast for Armenia’s GDP worsens, it will lead to lower tax revenues than initially planned for. According to the Finance Minister, Atom Janjughazyan, with the forecast 2% decline of GDP at the end of the year, tax revenues will decrease by about 10% compared with the planned volume. If the economy diminishes by more than 2%,that will lead to an even greater reduction in tax revenues. Janjughazyan also noted that the government plans to keep budget spending unchanged in order to mitigate the negative consequences and create the preconditions for a quick recovery. Although this decision could help to prevent social discontent and avert some economic problems, it could have long-lasting economic consequences by significantly increasing the budget deficit. With a reduction in taxes generated of about 10%, the budget deficit will double, reaching 5% of the projected GDP or $676.4 million (1 Armenian Dram=0.0021 USD). To run the budgeted projects with such a high level of deficit, the government will have to amend the budget legislation in order to exceed existing restrictions.
Another financial problem for Armenia is related to the implementation of support programs. As the emergency situation has substantially impacted economic development, the government has had to implement support programs. Even though these programs have been important in supporting the economy, they have also created financial problems as the government does not have enough resources to implement them independently. To support the economy, the government approved a support package of $315 million. Of these funds, $168 million will be used for long-term economic development programs;$52.5 million for the elimination of economic problems, social tension and liquidity issues; and $42 million for the redistribution of reserve funds. So far, the Armenian government has approved 20 crisis measures for the implementation of support programs.
Financing the high budget deficit and extensive support programs creates financial problems as Armenia does not have sufficient financial resources. Therefore, Armenia must attract funds from other countries or international financial institutions. Based on the calculations of the Armenian government for financing the combined support programs and budget deficit,it needs to raise an additional$546 million. Armenia already has a large volume of external debt (40% of GDP in 2019) and raising additional funds will significantly increase that debt. Taking on an additional $546 million of debt will increase the government’s external debt by about 10%. Taking into account that, during 2019, the total public debt of Armenia increased by about 14.8%, the increase of external debt by about 10% from only one source shows how seriously it will affect the financial security of the country.
Armenia also is facing economic problems in the energy sector. On April 1,GazpromArmenia, the Russian-owned natural gas distributing company, declared that it was going to ask the Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC) for changes to gas prices in Armenia. It proposed to set the same price for all customers beginning from July 1. This change would eliminate the discount for low-income families, thus leading to a 35% increase in price for them but a2.2% decrease for consumers that use up to 10,000 cubic meters of gas per month. The Armenian government was dissatisfied with the offered gas rates as it was already dealing with pandemic-related economic problems and it requested that Russia decrease the price of gas that they sell to Armenia.
As the talks with Russia did not lead to desired results, the PSRC accepted the changes but kept the price for domestic users and low-income families unchanged. The PSRC wants the average weighted price of 1,000 cubic meter of gas be set at $266.7 USD,$16.43 below the price that Gazprom Armenia had proposed. The price of natural gas will increase from $212 to $224 per thousand cubic meters for agricultural companies, and from $242 to $255.92for consumers who use more than 10,000 cubic meters of gas per month. The new prices will enter into force on July 19, except for thermal power plants. Despite the fact that PSRC was able to prevent price changes for ordinary citizens, the new rates will create unemployment problems. In order to operate with accepted price changes Gazprom Armenia has to lay off about 1500 employees and reduce its annual revenues about 6%.
The inability of the Armenian government to solve its economic problems with its own financial resources or to diversify its energy imports will lead to significant economic problems. Many countries around the world are facing economic and financial problems and are therefore looking to obtain foreign assistance, and this reduces opportunities to access foreign finance by intensifying competition. Therefore, it is not currently easy for Armenia to attract financial resources. The dependence of the energy sector on the price policies of other countries also creates economic instability. Even though the PSRC was able to avoid natural gas price rises for ordinary citizens, it cannot prevent unemployment issues and price rises for businesses. Therefore, countries that are dependent on foreign financial assistance and are unable to implement independent economic and energy policies during the pandemic and in the post-pandemic period will face serious economic issues. Taking into account that social and economic problems were among the main drivers of the change of government in Armenia in 2018,the pandemic-related economic problems will also have political consequences.
Building Back Better: The new normal development path
Global stock markets such as Footsie, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nikkei has decreased the profit since the outbreak of...
Giorgio Armani and Gino Sorbillo Named New Special Ambassadors for Tourism
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has appointed two new Special Ambassadors as it leads the restart of the sector across...
Moneyball: Is intuition the one thing that makes sports beautiful?
Looking from afar, Moneyball looks like a male-centric sport movie that teaches us about how baseball works. But looking more...
“America first” and Canada’s approach towards immigration
The Trump Administration’s recent announcement to suspend work visas–H1B (visas for high skilled professionals), H4B (spouses of H1B visa holders)...
World Bank Financing to Help Kazakhstan Unleash Full Potential of its Livestock Industry
The World Bank Board of Executive Directors approved today a $500 million loan for the Sustainable Livestock Development Program to...
What will a path to an inclusive and sustainable economic recovery from COVID-19 look like?
The manufacturing sector is facing its most significant challenge yet in the form of COVID-19 disruptions to both supply and...
Of IMF’s Debt Trap and Chinese Debt Peonage
With the mandate of fostering global monetary corporations, securing financial stability, facilitating international trade, promoting high employment and sustainable growth,...
East Asia3 days ago
Why does the Dragon do what it does
Europe3 days ago
Of Multilateralism And Future To Europe Recalibration
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Malaysia in the geopolitical picture of Southeast Asia
Arts & Culture3 days ago
The Art, Artist and The Pandemic
Economy2 days ago
Coronavirus Impact On The World Of Work Traverses National Borders
Energy2 days ago
Covid-19 Impact on Africa’s Energy Sectors: Challenges and Opportunities
Americas2 days ago
The Atom And The Virus: A Progressively Lethal Convergence For The United States
Urban Development2 days ago
Mapping the juxtaposition of sustainable-affordable housing in the post Covid world