In November, the world’s attention will be focused on the proceedings and outcomes of the United Nations COP26 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Glasgow. We will be told, as we have been repeatedly by the IPCC, that this is the last-ditch attempt to save the planet and perhaps humanity from the catastrophic consequences of global warming and climate change (GW&CC) through the increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in our atmosphere. Alok Sharma, the British cabinet minister currently serving as president of COP 26 calls it a “turning point” point for humanity.
To that end, the world will be encouraged to abandon all fossil fuel-based energy generation, which for years has represented more that 80 percent of global energy consumption. The gathering in Glasgow will also enthusiastically and appropriately, welcome the increases of alternative energy sources in many countries, especially wind and solar, which currently provide about four percent of global energy consumption. Unfortunately, such alternative sources of energy are projected to remain modest compared to coal, natural gas and oil. This trend is compounded by rising energy demands in developing countries where fossil fuels remain a dependency.
Even developed countries such as Canada will not be able to meet the targets voluntarily set at COP21 in Paris. On October 6th the Globe and Mail reported: “Canada is on pace to fall well short of its emissions goals, according to a new government-funded report that says the country’s current strategies will reduce its greenhouse gas output by only 16 percent, relative to 2005 levels, by 2030 — a far cry from the 40-percent cut that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised.”
Ironically, the UK government (host of COP26) is permitting the first deep coal mine in 30 years to be created in Cumbria with most of the extracted coal to be exported to Europe. This underlines another misunderstanding perhaps widely held, namely, the atmosphere pays no attention to the source of GHG emissions. A ton of carbon absorbed in the atmosphere from Beijing has the same global impact as one emitted from Montreal.
The gap between climate diplomacy at COP meetings and the national energy policy decisions implemented between them has fostered cynicism about the value of targets that are undermined as much by hypocrisy as by chemistry.
Columbia Professor James Hansen, known as the “father of climate change awareness”, told the Guardian in 2015 that the talks that culminated in a deal at COP21 were just “worthless words”. Speaking as the final draft of the deal was published, Hansen said: “It’s just b******t for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.” Hansen has never been an irrational alarmist and his record of climate change prediction to date has been remarkably good.
With no sanctions and no carbon pricing agreed upon in Paris, is it realistic to assume that the world, with total primary energy consumption more than 80 percent dependent on fossil fuels in 2020, will restructure our societies and infrastructures in time to prevent CO2 atmospheric concentrations from passing the possible “tipping point” of 450 parts per million (ppm)? At the time of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, concentrations were about 367 ppm. They have now passed 400 ppm and continue to rise.
As the Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), I introduced Sustainable Development (SD) to the group’s work program in 1997 and created the OECD Round Table on SD that same year. While SD embraces a wide range of environmental, social and governance objectives (often referred to as Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG), all SD is only possible within a healthy biosphere that enhances and protects the world’s natural capital composed of the air, the water, the soil and the biodiversity of our millions of viable cohabitants. I did so because the 1972 UN meeting in Stockholm, the Brundtland UN report “Our Common Future”, the RIO Earth Summit in 1992 where the UNFCCC was created, plus the regular IPCC reports pointed to a climate change crisis in the near future.
Many argue that it is still not too late to embark upon ambitious environmental programs to ensure that GHGs decline before CO2 accumulations in the atmosphere exceed 450 ppm. This is the level the scientific consensus tells us will keep global mean temperatures from increasing above pre-industrial levels by more than 2° C with concomitant disastrous climate change far outstripping our global capacity to reduce fossil fuel emissions or adapt to a very different world. It is too late unless COP26 is courageous enough to introduce new technologies with have yet to be rigorously tested.
No alternative – no Plan B
Where is Plan B? There is none. We are simply re-embarking on the well-trodden path of consistent failure. Perhaps as a last resort, atmospheric geoengineering known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM) will be considered, at least at an experimental level to determine whether we might have a useful fire extinguisher at hand when there is a consensus that rising above 2 degrees C is inevitable.
The challenge is that, based on the last few decades of trying to come to grips with GW&CC by a few brave countries (e.g. consider Germany’s extraordinary increase to 44 percent wind- and solar-generated renewable electricity-generating capacity by the end of 2015, that still only provides about 8 percent of Germany’s total primary energy consumption), none of our alternative solution technologies, as presently configured, is capable of being scaled-up to make a significant dent in the overwhelming use of inexpensive and very convenient fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal). As strongly emphasized by the US-EIA in its May 2016 report, the massive growth of population in the developing countries, and their fast-rising standards of living and expectations are forecast to sustain the use of fossil fuels globally at very high levels for decades.
As these projections were made since the Paris COP21 targets, how can one not be skeptical about keeping CO2 accumulations below 450 ppm? In the absence of herculean efforts of unprecedented research and development to find “breakthrough” solutions/alternatives, and extraordinary global cooperation and coordination, it is too late. The process under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has delivered agreements, but only minimal results. COP21 in Paris has maintained that dismal record of underachievement.
John Maynard Keynes suggested that the master economist should examine the present in light of the past for the purposes of the future. So should we in looking at our history of fighting climate change. Some engaged in the climate change debate are surprised to learn that science has known of the characteristics of CO2 and its greenhouse effect on our planet for more than a century. What have we done about it?
As early as 1896, a Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius (Nobel Prize for chemistry, 1903) identified the warming effects of the CO2 emitted by burning coal. Alarm bells rang at the Stockholm UN Environmental Conference in 1972 — more than 40 years ago. Concern was expressed about emissions, but their measurement and impact were not yet broadly understood until the UN creation of the IPCC in 1988.
Those alarm bells grew louder after the UN Brundtland Report Our Common Future in 1987, helped to spur action with the Montreal Protocol on GHGs reached in 1987 and implemented in 1989, and mobilized political will at the UN Rio Earth Conference in 1992, where the climate change convention was adopted.
The UN General Assembly in Special Session met in New York in 1997, where we listened to statements from world leaders and others (including me) about the importance of reducing emissions. That meeting was followed by the UN Kyoto conference, where the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.
It was agreed that Annex 1 countries (37 developed) would reduce their emissions during two commitment periods on average by 5.2 per cent below their respective 1990 levels. Canada’s commitment was a six percent decrease by 2012 compared to 1990. By 2008, Canada’s emissions had increased by 24.1 per cent over 1990 and Canada withdrew from the protocol.
We have witnessed governments across the globe tailor their policies to their short-term political imperatives rather than to long-term challenges such as climate change.
For many years, we witnessed a parade of alternative energy advocates producing “possible” scenarios for reducing GHG emissions. Wind, solar, energy efficiency, tidal, geothermal and others make up that list. All great ideas, but they ignored the technical, political and economic challenges of their effective integration and weaning ourselves and our economies away from fossil fuels while meeting the world’s energy requirements in light of the short time for action. To say those challenges are daunting would be a great understatement. In 2020, total world wind and solar energy consumption amounted to less than four percent of global primary energy consumption.
The present policy paralysis illustrates our incapacity to come to grips with global warming and its impact on climate change despite the human and economic toll of the weather aberrations we witness on a daily basis.
Hopefully, as the realization takes hold that the 450 ppm threshold will be passed, an international consensus will emerge and adaptation measures will be brought forward to address some of the most damaging early consequences. If nuclear continues to be rejected as a global solution, then in the absence of some yet to be discovered “breakthrough” technological developments, a Plan B must also examine solar radiation management (SRM or atmospheric geoengineering) and perhaps a broader utilization of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
There are now calls from serious sources to a least engage in testing SRM to determine whether it could serve as a lifeboat of last resort. Serious environmentalists like Bill Gates and Richard Branson are apparently interested in climate engineering, or geoengineering. Some experts, such as Canadian Professor David Keith at Harvard, Granger Morgan and Ken Caldeira at Carnegie Mellon and others are striving to determine whether SRM could be a potential lifeboat should the failure to arrest and reduce CO2 emissions continue, as it has for decades.
A non-technical explanation SRM might be simply the following. By spreading aerosols with reflective particles in the atmosphere one could alter the albedo, i.e. the reflective capacity of the earth, thereby lessening the amount of radiation that penetrates to the earth’s surface, and as a result, lessen the heat that is trapped under the CO2 blanket. The measured reduction in the earth’s temperature resulting from the spread of volcanic ash after eruptions suggests that this would be effective and relatively inexpensive. It would not be a permanent answer and would have to be renewed periodically. The concept is well explained in a recent book by David Keith, A Case for Climate Engineering, published by MIT.
Unfortunately, there is considerable resistance to the concept, which seems to find two areas of opposition. First, we see the dedicated environmentalists who believe that exploring this technology may detract from mitigation efforts of those seeking to arrest and reduce GHG emissions, especially CO2. Second, there are some fearful of even limited testing, which they claim could result in unintended consequences, and who remain convinced that there will be technological breakthroughs that will make geoengineering of the atmosphere unnecessary. Surely it is irresponsible for this generation not to have a Plan B.
Note this comment from Gates on Keith’s book:
“The negative effects of climate change will disproportionately impact the world’s poor. David Keith’s candid and thoughtful book lays out a compelling argument about the need for serious research on geoengineering and for a robust policy discussion on its possible use”
What better place to have such a robust discussion amongst experts than at COP 26 in Glasgow?
*Under the title “COP26 Glasgow and the Lack of a Plan B” the early version of this text appeared in the Canadian Policy Magazine. Courtesy of the author and publisher.
Can Asia and the Pacific get on track to net zero?
The recent climate talks in Egypt have left us with a sobering reality: The window for maintaining global warming to 1.5 degrees is closing fast and what is on the table currently is insufficient to avert some of the worst potential effects of climate change. The Nationally Determined Contribution targets of Asian and Pacific countries will result in a 16 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from the 2010 levels.
The Sharm-el Sheikh Implementation Plan and the package of decisions taken at COP27 are a reaffirmation of actions that could deliver the net-zero resilient world our countries aspire to. The historic decision to establish a Loss and Damage Fund is an important step towards climate justice and building trust among countries.
But they are not enough to help us arrive at a better future without, what the UN Secretary General calls, a “giant leap on climate ambition”. Carbon neutrality needs to at the heart of national development strategies and reflected in public and private investment decisions. And it needs to cascade down to the sustainable pathways in each sector of the economy.
Accelerate energy transition
At the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), we are working with regional and national stakeholders on these transformational pathways. Moving away from the brown economy is imperative, not only because emissions are rising but also because dependence on fossil fuels has left economies struggling with price volatility and energy insecurity.
A clear road map is the needed springboard for an inclusive and just energy transition. We have been working with countries to develop scenarios for such a shift through National Roadmaps, demonstrating that a different energy future is possible and viable with the political will and sincere commitment to action of the public and private sectors.
The changeover to renewables also requires concurrent improvements in grid infrastructure, especially cross-border grids. The Regional Road Map on Power System Connectivity provides us the platform to work with member States toward an interconnected grid, including through the development of the necessary regulatory frameworks for to integrate power systems and mobilize investments in grid infrastructure. The future of energy security will be determined by the ability to develop green grids and trade renewable-generated electricity across our borders.
Green the rides
The move to net-zero carbon will not be complete without greening the transport sector. In Asia and the Pacific transport is primarily powered by fossil fuels and as a result accounted for 24 per cent of total carbon emissions by 2018.
Energy efficiency improvements and using more electric vehicles are the most effective measures to reduce carbon emissions by as much as 60 per cent in 2050 compared to 2005 levels. The Regional Action Programme for Sustainable Transport Development allows us to work with countries to implement and cooperate on priorities for low-carbon transport, including electric mobility. Our work with the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade also is helping to make commerce more efficient and climate-smart, a critical element for the transition in the energy and transport sectors.
Adapting to a riskier future
Even with mitigation measures in place, our economy and people will not be safe without a holistic risk management system. And it needs to be one that prevents communities from being blindsided by cascading climate disasters.
We are working with partners to deepen the understanding of such cascading risks and to help develop preparedness strategies for this new reality, such as the implementation of the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action for Adaptation to Drought.
Make finance available where it matters the most
Finance and investment are uniquely placed to propel the transitions needed. The past five years have seen thematic bonds in our region grow tenfold. Private finance is slowly aligning with climate needs. The new Loss and Damage Fund and its operation present new hopes for financing the most vulnerable. However, climate finance is not happening at the speed and scale needed. It needs to be accessible to developing economies in times of need.
Innovative financing instruments need to be developed and scaled up, from debt-for-climate swaps to SDG bonds, some of which ESCAP is helping to develop in the Pacific and in Cambodia. Growing momentum in the business sector will need to be sustained. The Asia-Pacific Green Deal for Business by the ESCAP Sustainable Business Network (ESBN) is important progress. We are also working with the High-level Climate Champions to bring climate-aligned investment opportunities closer to private financiers.
Lock in higher ambition and accelerate implementation
Climate actions in Asia and the Pacific matter for global success and well-being. The past two years has been a grim reminder that conflicts in one continent create hunger in another, and that emissions somewhere push sea levels higher everywhere. Never has our prosperity been more dependent on collective actions and cooperation.
Our countries are taking note. Member States meeting at the seventh session of the Committee on Environment and Development, which opens today (29 November) are seeking consensus on the regional cooperation needed and priorities for climate action such as oceans, ecosystem and air pollution. We hope that the momentum begun at COP27 and the Committee will be continued at the seventy-ninth session of the Commission as it will hone in on the accelerators for climate action.
In this era of heightened risks and shared prosperity, only regional, multilateral solidarity and genuine ambition that match with the new climate reality unfolding around us — along with bold climate action — are the only way to secure a future where the countries of Asia and the Pacific can prosper.
The Collapse of the Climate Change Cult
Despite the attempts by the media coverage and attendees at the COP27 Climate Change Summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt touting the creation for a loss and damage fund where developed countries who are allegedly responsible for the planet’s demise will pay reparations to countries who are seemingly impacted by our climate warming sins, there was significant turmoil as the Summit went into two-days of overtime to come up with a watered down agreement. The cracks are becoming more evident in the collapse of the politically driven climate agenda that is exposing the folly, hypocrisy, and an emerging suffering caused by the climate policies.
Ask people in developed nations if the summit is of any concern when survival for their family is top of mind. People can’t afford the 30% increase to heat their homes or fill their vehicle with enough gas to get to work. Then add inflation on food from rising supply-chain costs and a carbon tax veneer on consumer items. No wonder we are seeing people choose between food, medicine, and heat. Some are turning to burning dirtier coal and wood to weather the ensuing frigid winter with energy blackouts. The most obvious and immediate fallout from the past decade of climate action and unreliable green energy is just beginning to come home to roost.
COP27 opened with the tiring end-of-the-world doomsday rhetoric by United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ stark warning that the world is losing the fight against climate change, “We are in the fight for our lives…our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible…we are on a highway to climate hell”. He added, “Humanity has a choice, cooperate, or perish. It is either a Climate Solidarity Pact or a Collective Suicide Pact”. One might add ‘a loss of Sovereignty Pact too’ by relinquishing power to the climate zealots.
Questions remain from the summit as to who will pay into the climate justice fund, how much, who will receive our personal taxes, and how will the down payment be deployed? One might ask why some 400 private jets spewing carbon lined the airports in Egypt where attendees ate lavishly in an air-conditioned luxury resort town could not have sailed or biked to a summit in tents or just go on a call and allocate the millions of dollars into their justice fund. It is estimated that the Summit will emit well over 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases.
The summiteers came away with no deal to phase out or eliminate fossil fuels and they hinged their hopes on their science to limit a global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees -referencing to 2015’s Paris Agreement, which aims to cut man-made carbon dioxide to net-zero by 2050. In all reality, only a handful of countries are keeping their promises and attaining their climate plan. If the 1.5-degree target is even a proven fact, some estimates would require global emissions to be cut 43% by 2030 where we are currently on track to dip by 1%. A reduction of this amount would tailspin the world into economic collapse resulting in wars, famine, deforestation, and societal failure unparalleled to the greatest extermination of humans.
There have been many prophetic end-of-the-world climate dates from scientists, politicians, and celebrities claiming we have a limited number of years remaining. One that sticks out was the cinematic release of ‘An Inconvenient Truth (2006) featuring former US Vice President Al Gore who convinced moviegoers the world was warming because human activity. The movie cited food crop failures, CO2 concentrations rising, and catastrophic super hurricanes. Gore, himself, predicted in 2009 there would be a 75% chance that the ice in the Arctic could vanish within 5-7 years.
These predictions all fell well short. Seventeen years following the movie, new technology and smart farming has resulted in bountiful harvests, super-sized hurricanes have not materialized although there has been significantly more collateral damage with the increasing number of homes and communities built along the coastal waters, CO2 concentrates have increased but not near the modeling, and the Arctic ice has not disappeared. We do know for sure that Gore got very rich by scaring the public into thinking there was an impending climate apocalypse.
There is no denying climate has ebbed and changed over time. This could be attributed to the core of the earth’s volcanic eruptions ejecting ash into the atmosphere, huge forest fires releasing carbon over centuries, and the impact of solar winds surging 150 million kilometers from a medium-sized Sun. Perhaps man-made actions have marginally impacted the climate relative to the big players; and who’s to say we could not ebb back into the big freeze that we found ourselves in during the 70’s.
In February 2022, the Fraser Institute in Canada took an in-depth look at the doomsday predictions from climate models provided by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -widely considered to be the authority on matters related to the climate. The IPCC determines the number of years to the catastrophic tipping points on models of greenhouse gases, atmospheric warming, and ecological impact. According to the Fraser Institute Fraser Institute, the periodic assessments by the IPCC are flawed scenarios not based on actual real data. They stated that with each passing year, there are discrepancies from the IPCC projected climate warming exceeding actual observations over the past 35 years.
Essentially these findings undercut the current narrative at the annual COP Climate Summits that we are on ‘the highway to climate hell’ rather than taking a more balanced approach to addressing climate concerns. One cannot overlook the IPCC’s funding is derived from governments who leverage the data in their political pursuits while disregarding opposing scientific positions as climate terrorism or deniers.
Why not cheaper, reliable, and cleaner energy. Why not collaborate on nuclear energy and much cleaner natural gas through advanced technology to trap carbon? Why not work to get the world off dirtier coal and wood. Should we also question solar farms requiring massive swaths of land cleared of animals and vegetation to erect mineral-laden panels made from scorched earth mining that will generate diluted energy at high costs. What about the non-degradable hazardous panels filling landfills when decommissioned after a 20-year life span. Aside from ground species being wiped out, tens of thousands of birds are igniting in midair as they fly overhead the garage-size mirrors. Workers call them “streamers”, for the smoke plume that comes from their incineration.
It is unrealistic to believe the world will stop using oil-based energy, and bi-products and lubricants over the next century. Mandating EVs without having the charging infrastructure in place; let alone the massive amounts of energy required to power millions of chargers could result in grid-failing blackouts when people crank up the A/C.
If COP27 was more serious beyond the world’s leaders parachuting in with sound bites and empty promises, they might want to turn their attention to pressuring China whose large coal-powered industries cause air quality to threaten the health of tens of millions of people. With the enormous boom in manufacturing and huge surge in motorized vehicles, China’s CO2 emissions in 2021 rose above 11.9 million tonnes accounting for 33% of the global total. It is appalling COP27 gave China a pass on contributing to their loss and damage fund whereas America, who has lower emissions, will be coughing up billions of dollars.
Rather than claiming the planet is in the emergency room with a decade to live and denying opposing voices as a political insurgency, would it not be more advantageous to win the hearts and minds of both competing visions of climate responsibility by producing the cleanest, most reliable, and most affordable energy on the planet. We have a choice to see through the political rhetoric to support cleaner and diverse energy with greener technology where the energy industry is not under the knife and unwilling to invest in a future where people do not suffer and can afford to live a better life.
Russia’s war on Ukraine at COP27 -And Energy Security
The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—known as COP 27–was held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The goal of the COP 27 is to achieve the outcomes of the COP26, which was held in Glasgow from October 31 to November 12, 2021, and its goal was to secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees Celsius, one of its important goals was also to adapt to protect communities and natural habitats, to try to make and prepare at least $100 billion in climate finance per year, countries must work together to finish the Paris agreement rulebook in order to take action.
The COP27 aims to achieve the previously mentioned COP 26 agenda; more than 193 countries from around the world participated in the COP 27, and the main slogan of the COP27 was “Act Now and Together for Implementation.” Climate change is a priority on the United Nations’ agenda, and it always calls on all countries around the world to band together to fight climate change and save lives, putting all political problems aside. The climate change crisis has emerged as one of the most pressing issues occupying the attention of world leaders and policymakers around the world, affecting human lives, and necessary measures must be taken to address climate change in light of an unstable world caused by wars and disputes in many regions and countries around the world.
During COP 27, world leaders discussed wars and their impact on climate change. They also discussed the ongoing Russian-Ukraine conflict and its impact on energy. It is worth noting that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine can be traced back to 2014 when an armed conflict occurred in eastern Ukraine as a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Russia’s president Putin stated that the reason for annexing Crimea is to protect the people who speak Russian in Crimea, as well as Russian citizens there. As a result, there were some clashes between pro-Russian and Ukrainian forces. Some countries, including Germany and France, attempted to use diplomatic ties to end the conflict between the two sides through the so-called “Minsk Accord,” but their efforts were futile.
NATO announced in April 2016 that it would deploy four troops in four Eastern European countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, with the goal of deterring future Russian aggression in the region. Following NATO’s announcement of troop deployments in Eastern Europe the following year, the United States announced it would send two army tank brigades to Poland in order to strengthen NATO’s presence in Europe The provocation of America and NATO pushed Russia to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russia launched a just war to prevent the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in eastern Europe, as well as to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO because joining NATO poses a direct threat to Russia’s survival and security.
During COP 27, the participating countries discussed the invasion of Ukraine as an example of the environmental and humanitarian disaster that the world is experiencing. The Russian war on Ukraine increased energy prices, particularly in many European countries that rely heavily on Russia’s fossil fuels. It is worth mentioning that European countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are attempting to take a chance on the war by accelerating their transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. The European Commission has also presented a strategy to quickly transition EU countries away from Russian energy, which includes increasing renewable energy and supporting the manufacture of hydrogen.
Some country leaders expressed their concern about the war, and President El-Sisi, the president of the Arab Republic of Egypt, mentioned the Russian and Ukrainian crises in his speech at the COP27 opening ceremony of the Climate Conference, and called on the two sides to end and stop the war, saying: “Please stop this war,” and mentioning that Egypt is willing to mediate to resolve the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
At COP27, UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres stated, “the war in Ukraine, conflict in the Sahel, and violence and unrest in so many other places are terrible crises plaguing today’s world.” War could be one of the most damaging factors affecting climate change, energy security, and food security. The invasion of Ukraine may draw more attention to food security research. According to the UN General Secretary, conflict could cause one-fifth of humanity’s estimated 1.7 billion people to suffer from extreme poverty and starvation.
Many countries expect COP27 to produce fruitful results in ending Russia’s war on Ukraine and addressing climate change. And to achieve COP27 goals, countries must act now to take climate change seriously, stop wars and conflicts, and protect the climate and the environment. Leaders and policymakers must start taking action now and sit together around one table, putting politics aside, to implement the plans presented by the UN, to save our plants and protect the climate for the next generation, and to provide a good life; otherwise, it will be too late.
Deciphering North Korea’s Nuclear ‘Obsession’
In the past few decades, nuclear weapons have come to be synonymous with North Korea. The country’s growing nuclear proliferation...
Ramaphosa Faces Possible Impeachment for Corruption
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has fallen into turbulent waves and struggling to save his position and reputation. It has...
Russia-Africa Summit: Sergey Lavrov Embarks on Courtship and Assessment Tour
Behind lofty summit declarations, several bilateral agreements and thousands of decade-old undelivered pledges, Russia has been at the crossroad due...
The Indignant Politics of America’s Mass Shootings
Why do mass shootings garner the lead stories in the news cycle? Could it be the sudden cluster of deaths...
It Is Possible To Live Peacefully In The Caucasus
The Caucasus is a geographical area inhabited by a number of peoples. This region with its beautiful nature has experienced...
Small Business, Big Problem: New Report Says 67% of SMEs Worldwide Are Fighting for Survival
Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and mid-sized companies are the backbone of the global economy. They create close to 70%...
Ukraine Crisis: International Security and Foreign Policy Option for Pakistan
Impact on International Security: When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Russia presented it as a matter of its...
Eastern Europe4 days ago
Debunking Lies About the War in Ukraine
Defense4 days ago
Internet of Military Things (IoMT) and the Future of Warfare
Europe4 days ago
The Economist: “Europe looks like… a sucker”
Religion3 days ago
Pakistan On Its Way to Promote Interfaith Harmony
East Asia3 days ago
A review of popular unrest in China in light of the ongoing anti-lockdown protests
Americas4 days ago
The Silicon Valley’s ‘Code Peasants’ and ‘Code Overlords’
Terrorism3 days ago
Terrorist Upsurge in Taliban’s Afghanistan: Regimes, Attacks and the Concerns of Neighbors
Energy2 days ago
Massive Lying About the War in Ukraine