Olympics VP says China human rights 'not within' IOC remit


By AFP

October 13, 2021


A senior member of the International Olympic Committee on Wednesday swatted aside suggestions China should be challenged over its human rights record ahead of the Beijing Winter Games.

When asked about the treatment of the Uyghur minority in China, IOC Vice President John Coates said the body has no mandate to act.

“We are not a world government. We have to respect the sovereignty of the countries who are hosting the games,” Coates told an event in his native Australia.

Rights groups believe at least one million Uyghurs and members of other mostly Muslim minorities have been incarcerated in the northwestern Xinjiang region, and Beijing has also been accused of squeezing human rights in Hong Kong.

“We have no ability to go into a country and tell them what to do… it’s not our remit.”

The IOC and its members choose who hosts the Games and help run the event.

The body styles itself as the “guardian” of the Olympics and vows to “build a better world through sport”.

The Beijing Winter Olympics take place next February, but there have been calls for sponsors and others to boycott them or to find a way to protest the state of human rights in China.

The United States Congress has grilled five major sponsors — including Visa and Airbnb — accusing them of supporting the alleged genocide of Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

In response, Beijing has accused US politicians of “politicising sports” and of slandering China.

China has been ruled by the Communist Party since 1949 and has hosted the Olympics once before — the 2008 Beijing Summer Games.

That event was widely viewed as a showcase for China’s growing wealth and status as a rising power.

This time around, foreign fans will be banned due to coronavirus restrictions and the Winter Games will take place after several crackdowns — including in Hong Kong — designed to consolidate President Xi Jinping’s power.

FOSSIL FUEL STATES WANT INDEPENDENCE

Nigeria tax spat reignites federalism debate

By AFP
October 13, 2021

A legal battle between Nigeria’s government and states over sales tax is fueling fierce debate about federalism in Africa’s most populous country as politicians jockey for position before 2023 elections.

The spat –- whether federal or state governments have the right to collect value-added tax (VAT) –- may be about money, and the sum at stake runs into billions of dollars.

But the squabble also reflects long-standing questions about how Nigeria is governed and how wealth is shared in the continent’s top oil producer.

How the dispute ends may open up more state autonomy, analysts say, as wealthier southern regions test federal management of issues from oil resources and security policing to cattle grazing rights.

In August, a court in southern Rivers State, Nigeria’s petroleum heartland, ruled states should be responsible for collecting VAT and not the Federal Inland Revenue Service or FIRS.

Rivers State Governor Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, a staunch opposition Peoples Democratic Party leader, pushed through a law authorising local collection of VAT, warning FIRS against any “sabotage.”

Southern Lagos State, the nation’s economic powerhouse including the commercial capital Lagos, quickly followed with its own law to collect VAT.

After a federal government appeal, the dispute is caught up in competing demands, with Abuja considering a Supreme Court challenge.

Attorney General Abubakar Malami last week told reporters that only the national assembly could legislate on how VAT is levied.

“The federal government is looking at all options at its disposal, including the possibility of involving the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” he said.

Under Nigeria’s system, FIRS collects VAT centrally and the resources are distributed across federal, state and local governments.

VAT receipts in 2020 were 1.5 trillion naira or $3.6 billion. Under the current system the federal government gets 15 percent, with the rest split between states and local governments.

But richer southern states like Lagos and Rivers — Lagos alone produces around half of Nigeria’s VAT — have long complained they end up paying for poorer states mostly in the agricultural north but also some southern ones.

They want more “fiscal federalism,” meaning getting a bigger share of the VAT they collect and more responsiblity to manage their own affairs.

“What we are after is to ensure that this money is used for the people of Lagos State, and that is exactly what we have achieved,” Setonji David, a Lagos assembly lawmaker, told Channels TV.



– ‘Restructuring’ Nigeria –



The “restructuring” debate often resurfaces during election times in Nigeria, which became a single entity under British colonial rule in 1914 when the mainly Muslim north was joined with the mostly Christian south.

Regional identities for Nigeria’s major ethnic groups are often fiercely guarded — sometimes with separatist rhetoric — even as the federal government promotes national unity.

“We will see more of these scenarios, where different constituent entities will try to assert more control economically using political means over what is extracted or generated from their territories,” SBM Intelligence analyst Tunde Ajileye said of the VAT fallout.

The tax debate is especially sensitive after the coronavirus pandemic that battered Nigeria’s oil revenues and pushed Africa’s largest economy into its second recession in five years.

During the pandemic, the federal government increased VAT from five percent to 7.5 percent, providing much-needed revenue.

Eurasia Group’s Amaka Anku said decentralisation of tax management is unlikely, as most states lack expertise or willingness.

“Outside Lagos and the federal capital territory (Abuja), states are likely to be negatively affected by a decentralization of VAT collection, making the proposition politically unfeasible.”

But the VAT fight also plays into the heated tones before the 2023 election to replace President Muhammadu Buhari, a northern Muslim in power since 2015.



– Election tensions –



Critics of Buhari say since he came to power he has favoured northeners in a way that has intensified calls for more autonomy for states and even calls for separatism by some southern agitators.

Officials of the All Progressives Congress’ ruling party dismiss such claims and point to government investments across north or south.

But mass kidnappings, attacks and insecurity have also prompted calls from some southern leaders to have control over their own security forces.

VAT has joined a list of disputes where southern and northern leaders appear to be digging in on rival sides.

One of those is “zoning” — an unofficial power-sharing deal that rotates the presidency between candidates from the north and the south.

After two terms with northern Buhari, many southern leaders want a president from their region. Many leaders from the north disagree.

But despite the squabbling, analysts say a compromise on VAT is the likely outcome.

“The good thing about this is there has not been a use of violence or rhetoric, it is more the use of the court process,” said SBM’s Ajileye.

“I expect there will be some political settlement ultimately.”

STATE SANCTIONED MURDERS

Sri Lanka drops charges against admiral over killings


ByAFP
October 13, 2021


Sri Lankan Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda (R) with the country's Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa - Copyright AFP Lakruwan WANNIARACHCHI

Sri Lankan authorities have dropped charges, including conspiracy to murder, against a former navy chief linked to 11 killings that drew international condemnation, the country’s attorney general announced Wednesday.

The investigation against Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda was part of a case that cast a spotlight on extrajudicial killings during Sri Lanka’s 37-year ethnic war that ended in 2009.

Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam told the Court of Appeal that the state will not pursue charges against Karannagoda, who was first indicted in 2019.

A court official told AFP that a lower court would soon discharge Karannagoda, one of 14 people accused of abducting the teenaged children of wealthy families in 2008 and 2009 and killing them after extorting money.

Four charges had been laid against Karannagoda including conspiracy to murder, which carries the death penalty.

Rights watchdog Amnesty International urged Sri Lankan authorities to explain why they dropped the case.

The killing of the 11 youths has been raised at the UN Human Rights Council which has called for independent investigations into atrocities during the separatist war.

Police told a court in 2019 that the 11 victims were killed while in the illegal custody of the navy, although their bodies have never been found.

Investigators believe the true number of victims from the abductions and killings to be at least three times higher.

Police said the victims were not linked to ethnic Tamil separatist rebels and were kidnapped purely to extort money from families. Some were killed even after cash was handed over.

Military figures have been widely accused of extrajudicial killings during the war.

The final days of the offensive against the Tamils were marked by serious abuses, according to rights groups. A UN panel has said 40,000 civilians may have been killed in the final stages of the conflict.

People are preparing for a final showdown to stop coal extraction in the German Rhineland



Andrea Brock 
12th October 2021

A small earth wall separates the tiny village of Lützerath from the enormous diggers operating in Garzweiler II, one of three opencast lignite coal mines operated by energy company RWE in the German Rhineland.

The mine is 235 metres away, and coming closer every day. A number of houses in Lützerath have already been torn down, the area covered with gravel, grass, and some wildflowers. It’s hard to imagine that people lived here just a couple of years ago. Other houses are fenced off, with RWE security in front, twenty-four hours a day. Most people have resettled and have moved away.
Challenging eviction

But one farmer is holding out. Eckhard Heukamp is challenging the imminent eviction from his farm in the courts, arguing that the coal mining plans from the 90s should no longer allow for continued extraction in the light of climate change and coal phaseout. He was already displaced once, 15 years ago –when his farm in Borschemich was demolished, the land long dug up. Now he is fighting for his parents’ house and farm, which dates back to the 18th century.

He is not alone – citizens initiatives and groups are organising regular demonstrations, events, and a permanent vigil at the edge of the village facing the mine. Activists have set up a permanent occupation on Heukamp’s land – the ZAD Rhineland. The term ZAD comes from the French Zone à défendre – a militant occupation to stop big development projects. The most well-known ZAD is probably the ZAD de Notre-Dame-des-Landes that stopped a new airport being built near Landes, France, and famously resisted militarised eviction by the French state.

The ZAD Rhineland was set up to defend Lützerath against RWE and the police, and to stop coal extraction in the Rhineland. People are ready to put their bodies in the way in what might be the final showdown, the decisive battle. “If Lützerath stays, they won’t be able to get to the next five villages”, someone tells me. “But it will be hard”.

We spend all day building defence structures. Treehouses, barricades, lock-ons, and towers are popping up everywhere. People are giving climbing workshops and sharing blockading skills, discussing police repression and state violence, building up solidarity structures and a new kitchen, plotting and planning for day X – when RWE comes to cut trees or police show up to evict the camp.
Police violence and repression

The last big eviction in the Rhineland – the eviction of Hambacher Forst, which was recently declared illegal – ended up lasting five weeks before it was stopped by the courts. Thousands of police officers were brought in, but many more people came to defend the forest. Police were heavily criticised for the brutality with which they treated activists and the little regard they showed for their safety. One journalist died during the police operation, many ended up in precarious and unsafe situations.

This is happening all over Germany – only last year, during the eviction of the Dannenröder forest in central Germany, a protester was seriously injured when he fell four meters from a tripod after police officers cut the safety rope which held the tripod in place. The occupation was set up to stop another ecologically destructive infrastructure project – the new A49 motorway. Another protester, Ella, was sentenced to over 2 years in prison for allegedly injuring a police officer during the eviction – despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The collaboration between police and private security services in the Rhinish coal mining area has been well documented; repression, criminalisation, and violence go hand in hand. Few companies are as powerful as RWE. It’s structurally entrenched in the local political economy, and protected by German police forces who frequently act as private security. Many villages and towns are themselves RWE shareholders, and numerous politicians are on RWE’s payroll. In 1979, the German news magazine Spiegel warned:

Unrivalled and barely manageable, RWE is ruling over one of the largest monopolies of the Western world.

Today, Europe’s largest emitter continues to lobby for continued lignite coal mining – the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. If successful – the German government’s coal phase-out is set for 2038, much too late. Meanwhile, RWE is suing the Netherlands for 1.4 billion Euro compensation for phasing out coal by 2030.

 
It’s up to all of us to stop climate catastrophe

As politicians are getting ready for the next round of COP negotiations in Glasgow in November – where they’ll talk and achieve little to nothing – people in the ZAD Rhineland know that it’s up to them – to all of us – to stop climate catastrophe.

It might well be that this time, too, the courts will rule that the eviction of Luetzerath was illegal. But by then, the trees will have been cut, the land dug up, the village destroyed.

It’s windy at the edge of the mine where I’m sitting. I’m told this has been the case ever since RWE cut down the trees that once protected the village. And yet, the windmills next to the mine are not moving – the powergrid is overloaded – there’s too much wind, and coal power stations take too long to switch on and off.

The digger keeps moving towards us, ruthlessly. The power stations in the background keep burning coal, generating electricity for a system that requires abundant cheap energy to power endless growth, to generate profit for those in power at enormous ecological and social costs.
Another world is possible

The ZAD Rhineland shows that a different system is possible – a system that operates on the basis of solidarity, not competition; of degrowth, not growth; on climate justice, not green capitalism or ecological modernisation. True sustainability needs not just an end of coal, but the abolishing of those who protect coal interests – police, security, prisons – and of the economic and political system they are part of.

Joining the ZAD Rhineland is a good place to start this fight. From 29 October, the ZAD invites all of us to come to the anti-eviction skill share and protest camp, and to stop RWE. Whether you want to sit in a treehouse, build barricades, or cut veggies – please join, if you can. Every body counts.

Featured image via Andrea Brock

Damning revelations emerge about the UK’s clean energy claims ahead of COP26

New research suggests that a tree-burning power plant, which the UK heavily subsidises and categorises as ‘clean energy’, is the country’s biggest emitter of carbon pollution.

According to climate and energy thinktank Ember, Drax power station in North Yorkshire is the country’s biggest single source of CO2 emissions. Moreover, it claims that Drax is among the top three coal plant emitters in the whole of the EU.

Biomass giant

Drax used to be an exclusively coal-fired plant. In the last couple of decades, however, it has switched a number of its units to burn biomass – namely wood – rather than coal. People in the UK pay a levy on fuel bills, massive subsidies from which go towards propping up the plant. And it’s now expanded, becoming the second largest manufacturer of its main feedstock – wood pellets – for producing bioenergy.

According to Ember, with its biomass and coal energy production combined, Drax was the third biggest coal plant emitter of CO2 in the EU in 2020. Its CO2 emissions totalled 14.8 million tonnes (Mt), with 13.3Mt coming from bioenergy. The think tank also calculated that the plant was the EU’s fourth largest power plant emitter of PM10 in 2019. This is particulate matter that is below 10 micrometers in diameter. It’s a pollutant that can contain toxins and impact human health, particularly among vulnerable people.

A Drax spokesperson said that Ember’s figures were:

completely at odds with what the world’s leading climate scientists at the UN IPCC say about sustainable biomass being crucial to delivering global climate targets

A Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy spokesperson commented that the department “did not recognise” the figures.

Carbon neutral?

The Conservative government, and seemingly Labour too, accept the idea that biomass energy is carbon neutral. Globally, a number of policymakers and institutions also appear to endorse the premise. Its alleged carbon neutrality centers around the notion that we can plant further trees to replace the trees cut down for burning.

Trees store carbon, which is released when companies like Drax burn them. Ember points out that wood has a “lower energy density” than fossil fuels like coal. It says this means companies have to burn it “in higher volumes than coal to produce the same amount of energy”. As such, wood emits more carbon per unit of electricity than coal.

Because we can, in theory, plant further trees that will suck that carbon back out of the atmosphere, the fuel has attracted the ‘neutral’ characterisation. However, trees take time to grow and store carbon. Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is part of the Cut Carbon Not Forests coalition, asserts that Drax and others in the business “routinely” source wood from whole and mature trees.

So bioenergy appears to be driving the destruction of longstanding, carbon-holding forests. And its ‘neutrality’ is based on the assumption that at some point newly planted trees will be capable of storing that carbon instead.

Other issues

In short, the timelines don’t stack up in terms of the carbon accounting. Indeed, hundreds of scientists voiced their opposition to bioenergy in an open letter earlier in 2021 due to its contribution to global warming, among other things. Moreover, the European Academies Science Advisory Council has also pointed out that oftentimes:

the type of forest biomass harvested and its use causes harm to biodiversity while also failing to deliver climate benefits

A study released in July, meanwhile, asserted that in relation to water and irrigation, growing biomass at scale for burning cannot be achieved sustainably.

Drax also aims to develop the ability to capture and store the carbon produced in its burning of biomass. This is known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and it will be largely funded by UK consumers. Drax says this would make the fuel carbon negative rather than carbon neutral. But efforts to capture and store carbon (CCS) around the world so far haven’t inspired confidence in CCS as a viable, smooth, or secure route towards cleaner energy or a cooler world.

Despite all these issues, the UK government counts Drax’s bioenergy as a renewable – and therefore ‘clean’ – energy source. So it doesn’t count emissions from bioenergy in its CO2 totals. Meanwhile it does count bioenergy in its totals for renewable energy production. Bioenergy amounts for around 30% of the UK’s renewable energy. This means that, overall, bioenergy production reflects well on the government’s climate record, not badly, despite not being very ‘clean’ or sustainable.

The government also subsidised the company’s operations by over £2m a day in 2020 and 2017 according to Biofuelwatch.

Fails on every count

The NRDC’s Sasha Stashwick recently told The Canary that there are three key things the world needs prioritise to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises. They are:

Quickly ceasing to load the atmosphere with carbon.

Transitioning to real sources of renewable energy.

Protecting nature.

Doing the latter will both stem biodiversity loss and help to store carbon.

Despite its ‘neutral’ and ‘negative’ promises, bioenergy doesn’t appear to assist in any of these goals. In fact, on most counts, it seems to be making matters worse.

Boris Johnson did not understand his own Brexit deal, says Dominic Cummings

Boris Johnson never understood what his Withdrawal Agreement with the EU really meant, his former chief adviser has said in a series of typically rambling tweets.

“Babbling”

Dominic Cummings said that he had always intended to get “the trolley” – his derogatory nickname for the prime minister – to “ditch the bits we didn’t like” after beating Labour in the 2019 general election.

His latest intervention came after Brexit minister lord David Frost set out the UK’s demands for fundamental changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol contained in the agreement which Johnson signed in January 2020.

He said that when Johnson finally realised the true implications of the deal, he claimed he would never have agreed to it – although Cummings said that was a lie. During the election campaign, Johnson repeatedly boasted that the “divorce” settlement he had negotiated with Brussels – including the Northern Ireland Protocol – was a “great” deal that was “oven ready” to be signed.

Cummings said:

What I’ve said does NOT mean ‘the PM was lying in General Election 2019’, he never had a scoobydoo what the deal he signed meant.

He never understood what leaving Customs Union meant until November 2020.

When the prime minister did finally comprehend, “he was babbling ‘I’d never have signed it if I’d understood it’ (but that WAS a lie)”.

Cummings, who was credited with masterminding the successful Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum, said that, when Johnson entered No 10 in 2019, the country was facing the “worst constitutional crisis in a century” with much of what he called the “deep state” angling for “Bino” (Brexit in name only) or a second referendum.
International law

Cummings also argued that “getting Brexit done” was more of a priority than allegedly breaking international law:

Our priorities meant e.g. getting Brexit done is 10,000 times more important than lawyers yapping re international law in negotiations with people who break international law all the time

EU membership infantilised SW1 (Westminster) as yapping re ‘international law’ clearly shows.

Until November 2020, Cummings was the most senior adviser in the country. Johnson defended the man many times before eventually dropping him. Former PM David Cameron once described Cummings as a “career psychopath”.

Countries failing to protect forests, 7 years after New York declaration

Of the 32 biggest forest nations, only India has set an ambitious tree planting target and others are falling far short, according to analysis of their latest climate pledges

Published on 12/10/2021


Forest cleared for palm oil plantation, East Kalimantan, Indonesia 

(Photo: Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR/Flickr)

By Isabelle Gerretsen

Seven years after a major international pact to halt deforestation by 2030, most governments are not translating that ambition into domestic policy.

In 2014, more than 200 governments, companies, civil society and indigenous organisations signed up to the New York Declaration on Forests, promising to halve tropical deforestation by 2020 and end it by 2030.

A progress report on the declaration found that a majority of forest nations have not embedded those goals in their latest climate pledges to the UN.

The report analysed the climate plans of the 32 countries with the greatest potential to reduce carbon emissions through three activities: curbing deforestation, improving forest management and restoring or planting new forests. Twelve of the 32 had signed up to the NY declaration. Just 10, including Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, set explicit targets for forest protection.

“We found that they cover approximately half of the [combined mitigation] potential with their ambition. If we take out India, which has a very ambitious target for tree planting, it’s only 16%,” Franziska Haupt, lead author of the report and managing partner at Climate Focus, told Climate Home News. India has pledged to increase its forest cover by 95 million hectares by 2030.

Green Climate Fund: Board fights over net zero condition for accessing finance

There have been some successful policies, such as moratoria on timber exports and palm oil plantations in Indonesia and Laos, but much bolder reforms are needed to prevent further forest loss, the report says.

“It is clear that all these positive steps have not been able to curb the powerful drivers of unsustainable land use,” said Haupt. In several countries, such as Brazil and Peru, the government has rolled back environmental safeguards and monitoring in recent years, leading to an increase in deforestation, she added.

Land use change, including deforestation and degradation, accounts for around 10-12% of global emissions, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Around 12.2 million hectares of tropical forests were lost in 2020, an increase of 12% compared to the previous year, according to data from the University of Maryland and Global Forest Watch.

“Forests have not been recognised for their potential. They offer an essential climate solution, we cannot miss them. That has not really arrived in mainstream policymaking,” said Haupt.

Between 2001-2020, forests removed up to 7.35 gigatonnes of CO2 a year from the atmosphere, according to the report. Forests managed by indigenous communities in Peru, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia are net carbon sinks and can play a key role in helping these countries meet their climate goals, it says.

UAE sets net zero by 2050 target, promises renewable investments

One major obstacle to ramping up global forest protection is the lack of finance, said Haupt.

Since 2010, countries have spent an average of $2.4 billion a year on national and international forest and climate goals. That is between 0.5%-5% of what is needed to protect and restore forests, estimated to be as high as $460 billion per year. Around a quarter of the 32 countries analysed say that their forest targets can only be met if they have access to international finance.

“Forests offer the third highest mitigation potential, after the industry and energy sectors, yet they receive only a fraction of climate finance,” Haupt told Climate Home. “In 2017 and 2018 the land use sector – including forests and agriculture – received only 21 billion annually in public and private climate finance. The energy sector received 16 times as much.”

“When it comes to protecting forests, there is a yawning gap between where governments are and where they need to be. We won’t tackle climate change without looking after forests and the people who depend on them,” said Allison Hoare, senior research fellow on forest governance at Chatham House.

“We have the solutions to tackle deforestation, but they are still not being implemented at scale. Land use decisions are often made by the elite who prioritise short-term economic interests,” said Hoare, adding that forest-dependent communities must be included in consultation processes.

DUH OH
World's clean energy transition 'too slow': IEA

The IEA says investment in clean energy needs to more than treble over the next decade to meet climate pledges 

Roy ISSA AFP/File

Issued on: 13/10/2021

Paris (AFP)

The global transition to clean energy is still far too slow to meet climate pledges and risks fuelling even greater price volatility, the International Energy Agency warned on Wednesday.

"We are not investing enough to meet for future energy needs, and the uncertainties are setting the stage for a volatile period ahead," said IEA chief Fatih Birol.

"The social and economic benefits of accelerating clean energy transitions are huge, and the costs of inaction are immense."

In its annual World Energy Outlook report -- published just weeks before the COP26 summit in Glasgow -- the IEA calculated that investment in clean energy projects and infrastructure would need to be more than trebled over the next decade if those pledges are to be met.

At the summit, countries will come under pressure to commit to decisive action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as pledged in the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.

- Is 1.5C still achievable? -   NO

The IEA -- which advises developed countries on energy policy -- said that renewables such as wind and solar energy continued to grow rapidly, and electric vehicles set new sales records in 2020, even as economies were bent under the weight of Covid-19 lockdowns.

However, "this clean energy progress is still far too slow to put global emissions into sustained decline towards net zero" by 2050, which the agency believes will help limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5C.

The agency analysed two possible scenarios.

At the COP26 summit countries will come under pressure to commit to decisive action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels  

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

The first looked at the measures governments had already put in place or specific policies they were actively developing.

And while almost all of the increased energy demand until 2050 could be met by low emissions sources, annual emissions would still be roughly the same as today as developing economies build up their nationwide infrastructure, the IEA said.

Under this scenario, temperatures in 2100 would be 2.6C higher than pre-industrial levels.

The second scenario looked at promises made by some governments to achieve net-zero emissions in the future, which would see a doubling of clean energy investment and financing over the next decade.

If these pledges were fully implemented in time, demand for fossil fuels would peak by 2025, and global CO2 emissions fall by 40 percent by 2050, the IEA said.

Here, the global average temperature increase in 2100 would be around 2.1C, which would represent an improvement, but would still be way above the 1.5C agreed under the Paris accord, it concluded.

- 'Bumpy ride' -

"Reaching that path requires investment in clean energy projects and infrastructure to more than triple over the next decade," Birol said.

"Some 70 percent of that additional spending needs to happen in emerging and developing economies."

The IEA argued that the extra investment might be less of a burden than some might think.

"More than 40 percent of the required emissions reductions would come from measures that pay for themselves, such as improving efficiency, limiting gas leakage, or installing wind or solar in places where they are now the most competitive electricity generation technologies," it said.

The report also highlighted that insufficient investment was contributing to uncertainty over the future.

"Spending on oil and natural gas has been depressed by price collapses in 2014-15 and again in 2020. As a result, it is geared towards a world of stagnant or even falling demand," the IEA said.

"At the same time, spending on clean energy transitions is far below what would be required to meet future needs in a sustainable way."

That means energy markets could face a "bumpy ride" if investment in renewables is not increased, the IEA said.

© 2021 AFP

The IEA is embracing 1.5C ambition, leaving no excuse for new fossil fuel investment

Comment: In a fundamental shift in mainstream thinking, the world’s most influential energy body has for the first time put a net zero scenario at the heart of its forecasting

Ørsted's Anholt Wind Farm (Photo: Ørsted)

Published on 13/10/2021

By Maria Pastukhova

Today’s launch of the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2021 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) is one of the most significant energy moments this year.

It represents a fundamental shift in mainstream thinking on energy: it clearly outlines the irreversible coalescence of economic and climate risks, as well the key role that the shift away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy supply plays in maintaining economic growth in a climate-safe world.

Born in the 1973 oil crisis to ensure security of oil supplies, the IEA has emerged as the most influential advisory and statistical body on energy. The WEO is its most prestigious annual product: it sets the tone in the energy industry and guides public and private finance institutions.

The IEA has always positioned itself as a rational actor focusing on ‘realistic’ development pathways and security of supply – predominantly of oil and gas.

This year’s WEO signals a historic shift as the IEA introduces a new rationality, where security of energy supply and global economic growth no longer revolve around oil and gas. Instead, they are unequivocally tied to rapidly shifting the resource base on which the global economy has been operating – away from fossil fuels towards increasingly decarbonized energy mix.

For the first time, the WEO is centred on a global development pathway aligned with the goal of keeping the global warming below 1.5C – the “Net Zero Emissions by 2050” scenario. It confirms that the current energy system is not equipped to address the challenges posed by the climate change to economic growth, with a “low emissions revolution” being long overdue.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

The bad news is that the “stubbornness of the status quo” has already locked many economies into stranded assets, even in the gas sector, so often considered the “last transition fuel”. The IEA projects that most of the 200 billion cubic metres worth of LNG projects under construction will not recover their invested capital, with the total stranded capital estimated at $75 billion – enough to have covered three quarters of investments needed to reach 2030 renewable energy targets in all African countries. It reiterates that no investments in new coal mines and power plants or new oil and gas fields are required in the transitioning global economy.

The good news is that cost-effective solutions to decarbonize the global economy and boost its resilience to climate risk are readily available. Among these are measures to reduce methane emissions from fossil fuels; rapid scaling up investment in existing low-carbon technologies (most of all solar, wind and storage); and boosting energy efficiency, which will reduce energy bills for households and industry and provide resilience to price spikes.

No one has the same capacity as governments to steer the global energy sector to a climate-safe pathway. Some steps in the right direction have been taken this year, including the G7’s pledge to phase out fossil fuel finance, China’s commitment to quit financing coal abroad, the new US policy to de-facto exclude fossil fuels from multilateral development finance, and the recently announced Global Methane Pledge.

The rapid action on energy transition has, however, not yet become the rationale of global energy policy.

For that to happen, commitments made need to be substantiated by clear timelines and actions to 2030. Governments need to push major oil and gas companies and industrial end-users to invest in decarbonization, while, at the same time, alleviating transition impacts on poorer households and fossil fuel workers and communities. Crucially, they need to actively engage with national and international finance institutions to align public finance with a resilient, climate-safe development pathway. It’s time to wake up to the new normal.

Maria Pastukhova is a senior policy adviser at E3G.

#UBI    #WAGESFORHOUSEWORK

Subsidies not the right tool to deal with high energy prices: IMF

Issued on: 13/10/2021 

The International Monetary Fund said countries will need to invest more in renewable energy to protect against volatility in oil and gas prices 

MANDEL NGAN AFP/File

Washington (AFP)

Governments should avoid using general subsidies as a way to soften the blow from recent high energy prices, the IMF said Wednesday.

Broad subsidies are expensive, so policymakers instead should use targeted aid to help low income families most impacted from the recent surge, Paulo Medas, of the IMF's Fiscal Affairs Department said.

Generalized energy subsidies "benefit rich households who don't need the support," making them very costly, Medas told reporters.

In addition, "they are not friendly to the environment, in fact they lead to very negative incentives."

The IMF recommends "using more targeted support to those that are more vulnerable, and the hardest hit" including cash transfers or subsidizing electric bills for low income families.

Oil prices have been surging in recent weeks to the highest levels seen in years, pushing above $80 a barrel, which has added to worries that inflation may be moving higher permanently.

Medas said the increase was expected to some degree as global demand rebounded amid the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, but he underlined the IMF's push for countries to move to more green energy.

"The reality is that we have faced these large volatilities in oil and gas prices for a long time. And the only way to deal with this in a permanent way" is to invest more in renewable energy, he said.

"This is going to be the only way to build a resilient economy, and protect households from the volatility in oil and gas prices."

The operator of a 100,000-device-strong botnet arrested in Ukraine

by Vilius Petkauskas

12 October 2021

---

Ukrainian law enforcement exposed an owner of a botnet with 100,000 compromised devices at his disposal. Authorities suspect the threat actor carried out DDoS attacks for paid customers.

According to the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks were just one side of the perpetrators' illegal business. The hacker is said to have carried out spam and brute-force attacks as well as vulnerability scoping with malicious intent.

The SSU did not disclose the name of the suspect. However, the agency revealed that the hacker was a resident of the Ivano-Frankvisk region in Western Ukraine, bordering Romania.

The botnet operator communicated with clients via Telegram chats, with Webmoney, a Russian electronic payments system banned in Ukraine, used to take fees.

Interestingly, Rostelecom-Solar, the cybersecurity division of Russian telecom giant Rostelecom, recently announced that it 'sinkholed' 40,000 devices controlled by the largest known botnet, Mēris.

A DNS sinkhole is a mechanism that intercepts DNS requests attempting to contact known malicious domains and returning a false or controlled IP address.

It's unclear, however, if the arrest in Ukraine is related to the Mēris botnet. CyberNews researchers estimate around 250,000 devices in the botnet, with another 40,000 devices still exposed to abuse.

With a quarter of a million devices, the maximum capacity of the botnet stands at 110 million requests per second (RPS). That means that the largest DDoS attack in history, against a Russian tech company Yandex, demonstrated only 20% of the Mēris botnet capabilities.

The recent arrest is only one of several recent cybercrime-related arrests by Ukrainian authorities. A bot farm used to discredit the national vaccination program was liquidated in Eastern Ukraine last month.

Last week, Ukrainian police announced they had arrested a 25-year-old man responsible for over 100 hacks, causing $150 million in damage.

Image by Shutterstock.

Relentless attackers

A DDoS caused internet outages in New Zealand when the country's third-largest internet service provider was hit. The attack cut off around 15% of the country's broadband customers from the internet at one point.

Recent reports show that 2021 will be yet another record year for the number of DDoS attacks carried out. Threat actors launched approximately 2.9 million DDoS attacks in the first quarter of 2021, a 31% increase from the same time in 2020.

During DDoS attacks, vast numbers of "bots" attack target computers. Hence, many entities are attacking a target, which explains the "distributed" part. The bots are infected computers spread across multiple locations. There isn't a single host. You may be hosting a bot right now and not even know it.

When DDoS attackers direct their bots against a specific target, it has some pretty unpleasant effects. Most importantly, a DDoS attack aims to trigger a "denial of service" response for people using the target system. This takes the target network offline.

If you've repeatedly struggled to access a retail website, you may well have encountered a denial of service. And it can take hours or days to recover from.