Rising fuel costs are crippling Africa's economies

Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing a record surge in fuel prices as the Russian invasion of Ukraine drives up already steep energy costs.

Gas prices have risen sharply across Africa

Chaos reigns at a petrol station in Nigeria's commercial hub, Lagos. Arguments break out and drivers blare their car horns as they wait in the long queue that spills into the road, disrupting traffic.

Motorists here, and in many of the petrol stations in Nigeria's major cities, are spending hours waiting, in the hope of filling up their tanks before fuel runs out.

"Getting petrol is like digging for gold," groans waiting motorist Joy Agbonifo. "We spend hours looking for fuel, and when we get to a [petrol] station, there's no guarantee we'll even get any."

The fuel shortage in Nigeria has lasted more than three weeks. It started after the federal government held back imports of fuel that was found to be sub-standard, causing a scarcity at filling stations.

Protests over high fuel prices are common in Nigeria

Price hikes at pumps

Numerous independent fuel stations have increased the pump price of gasoline higher than the official 165 naira per liter ($0.40, €0.36).

"Many people hoard fuel to then sell it at a higher price," Agbonifo told DW. "That's what Nigeria has become."

The situation in Nigeria is part of a global problem, said economist Abdul-Ganyu Garba from Nigeria's Ahmad Bello University in Zaria.

"There are difficulties on the supply side and demand is starting to increase," Garba said.

Global oil prices skyrocketed in 2021 following the recovery of the global economy from the COVID-19 pandemic, sparking an increase in demand for petroleum products.

On top of this, Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24 has triggered a global price spike over concerns of a supply crunch.

Russia is one of the world's largest oil producers

Fears of cuts to Russian oil supplies

Russia is one of the three top crude oil producers in the world, along with the US and Saudi Arabia. Although sanctions on Russia don't directly target the country's oil exports, the global oil market is rattled by fears that Russia's oil production could be throttled.

Crude oil prices breached the $100 per barrel mark for the first time since 2014 on Tuesday.

Members of the International Energy Agency, which includes the world's biggest oil producer, the United States, agreed on Tuesday to release 60 million barrels of crude from their reserves.

So far, this has failed to quell the sharp price increases.

Nigeria's idle refineries

African countries are suffering high fuel prices and shortages as a result.

Ironically, this is a recurring problem for Nigeria, Africa's biggest exporter of crude oil. Despite its massive oil sector, Nigeria imports almost all of its petroleum products, partly because none of the country's four refineries work. Combined, these refineries would have a capacity of 445,000 barrels a day. Authorities blame mismanagement and corruption.

Nigeria fails to refine most of its crude oil, meaning it has to pay more to import oil than it receives for the sales of crude

Resource rich countries in sub-Saharan Africa haven't managed their raw material resources to become self-sufficient, economist Garba says.

Nigeria actually guarantees its citizens some of the cheapest fuel on the continent. Oil producing nations Angola ($0.30) and Chad ($0.90) also guarantee minimum fuel prices but this generosity is proving costly as the price of imported crude rises. 

High petrol prices across the continent 

The battle for petrol is not limited to Nigeria.

Across Africa, fuel prices have reached all-time highs. In Burkina Faso fuel prices rose by 8%. South Africa's national statistics institute said fuel prices in December 2021 had risen by 40,5% compared to the previous year.

In January, Burundi's government raised fuel prices by almost 13%, which Aloys Bakicako, leader of the opposition party Rassemblement National pour le Change called a "historic increase."

Burundians fear new hikes when buying imported food, which are pegged to fuel prices. After the Central African Republic, Zimbabwe and Senegal, Burundi is the most expensive African country for buying a liter of petrol.

Burundi's Energy Ministry blames the steady escalation of international oil prices, and repeated its pledge to keep the whole country supplied with fuel.

But transport costs have risen.

Fuel shortages are common in many Africa nations, causing motorists to spend hours in line waiting for gas

High fuel prices hitting everyday consumers

Burundian Innocent Irambona, who normally takes a taxi to work, complains that that option has now become unaffordable.

"Where I used to pay 2,000 Burundian francs, I now pay 3,000. Also, many taxi services are not working because of the fuel shortage. Paying higher prices is hard when our wages don't increase," Irambona said.

Across the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the price of petrol has risen by 3,000 Congolese francs ($1,50), a record.

The Congolese Ministry of Hydrocarbons says the petroleum logistics company SEP Congo, which is responsible for transporting and storing petroleum products, is struggling with technical problems.

Rising fuel prices are hitting Africans hard at a time when the prices of basic foods have also risen dramatically.

Angry Kenyans recently took to social media using the #lowerfoodprices to protest the soaring cost of food, electricity, and fuel.

The Kenyan government, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to raise more revenue, had raised taxes on household goods such as cooking gas, fuel, and food by 14%.

In Togo and Ivory Coast, food prices have also nearly doubled.

Opinion: Your solidarity is problematic if you leave Africans behind in Ukraine

The world is in solidarity with people fleeing war in Ukraine — but discrimination against people of color has sparked outcry under the hashtag #AfricansinUkraine. Solidarity must be inclusive, writes DW's Wafaa Albadry.

Many African students studying in Ukraine have been forced to flee to neighboring countries

 due to the war

The shocking invasion of Ukraine threatens millions of people's lives. Half a million people sought humanitarian refuge in neighboring countries within a week, and hundreds of thousands were displaced. Ukrainian men were separated from their loved ones and stayed to fight in the country while their families sought refuge, carrying with them trauma and uncertainty. 

People say war brings out both the best and the worst in people. In these crises, people in neighboring and nearby countries are opening their borders, homes, and even their arms, helping those fleeing the violence. Aid organizations, ordinary people, and politicians worldwide are showing solidarity. So many people are trying to help in some way — and that is inspiring.  

DW's Wafaa Albadry

But there's also another side, one that is a nightmare for Black people and other people of color who are denied access to safety. Many people of color from Africa, India, the Middle East and other regions who lived in Ukraine were denied the same welcome that was bestowed on others. Many were denied access to trains or buses that were designated to move refugees in Ukraine to safety, told that only Ukrainians were allowed. And when they arrived at the border by foot, they were pushed back at some Polish borders. 

They are as vulnerable, scared, and disappointed as the people in Ukraine are. What kind of solidarity excludes them from help? 

International students who spent nights near the Polish borders said they were also denied access to food and water, necessities that were distributed to those waiting to cross. They were forced to retreat to areas being bombed and to seek an alternative way out.

Over 76,000 international students are studying in Ukraine, and over 25% come from India and African countries, including Nigeria, Morocco, and Egypt. There are also workers and migrants who, too, needed to find a safe place.

Many of their families on the other side of the world are worried. Even if they escape the areas being bombed, how will they survive being pushed back for days without help? That has created even a more horrifying image of what is happening there: 

For those who are not white, it is war and racism.  

Selective humanity?

On social media, videos spread of Africans pleading for help and showing the discrimination they faced. From authorities pointing weapons at students who screamed they were unarmed, to a video showing a toddler as among those left in the cold.

Online hate speech soon chased after them. 

People posted nonsense, accusing people of color of not being civilized enough to be rescued. They claim that priority should go to white people. They say that Black people and other people of color should stay and fight in Ukraine, as if they actually had the right to choose who gets refuge and who must face war. It is outrageous — and it is blatant racism. It is unacceptable, this ridiculous notion that empathy depends on the skin color of a person. And it is a shame that this is happening in wartime. 

It seems it doesn't go without saying: It is dangerous to be stuck in a war zone, and it is even more difficult to escape if you are Black or another person of color. When everyone is escaping the same danger, why shouldn't everyone get the same treatment? Is this an alarming signal on the level of discrimination in Europe?  

I don't have that answer. But I do know that amid all the chaos, violence, and fear, some individuals with authority, be it on a train or at border control, unjustly decide who deserves to be helped. I see it as a statement from them that humanity is not for all. 

The blight was created in a week, and its damage is still unfolding. All the scenes we saw online remind us that we humans need to support one another and treat each other with dignity. And remember: Black Lives Matter, too. Humanity and solidarity must be inclusive and not be selective. 

EU governments were transparent in their solidarity with people fleeing war in Ukraine. Now it's time to see actions of solidarity applied on the ground. It is a failure for humanity if anyone is left behind. It is a failure for the civilized world on the test of solidarity if people fleeing war in Europe are left without help in Ukraine or on the borders because of their color, ethnicity, or country of origin.  

War in Ukraine: ‘It’s not clear whether there is an endgame’

As the war rages in Ukraine, “it’s not clear whether there is an endgame,” warns Dr. Natasha Kuhrt, Lecturer in War Studies Education at King’s College London. She mentions one possible scenario whereby Russia emerges victorious and “essentially Ukraine would be brought back into the Russian fold” sans Zelensky. “There’s been talk about Yanukovych being brought back, being brought in as a kind of puppet leader, should there be a Russian victory,” although Dr. Kuhrt thinks “that would be a very strange move, given his unpopularity.” Yet she also recognizes that “any Russian occupation is obviously going to have to be without the consent of the Ukrainian people, and will only succeed with wide-scale repression, which is the kind of scenario we’ve seen in Chechnya.”

Russia sieges Ukrainian cities amid world condemnation

Ukrainian cities such as Kharkiv and Mariupol face heavy shelling, as an incursion into Kyiv looms. Meanwhile, over 1 million people have fled Ukraine and the ICC has opened a war crimes inquiry.

The invasion has devastated Ukraine's civilian population, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to flee

Russia's invasion of Ukraine enters its eighth day

International Criminal Court opens war crimes investigation into Russia

The majority of UN member states call for Russian forces to leave Ukraine

Air raid sirens in Kyiv

Residents of the Ukrainian capital were told to go to the nearest shelter early Thursday morning. Videos shared on social media showed explosions hitting the city.

Watch video 04:49 Kyiv under attack: Ukrainian MP Yelyzaveta Yasko talks to DW

More than 1 million refugees flee Ukraine

The UN high commissioner for refugees, Filippo Grandi, said more than 1 million people have fled Ukraine.

Grandi tweeted, "In just seven days we have witnessed the exodus of one million refugees from Ukraine to neighboring countries."

The 1 million figure amounts to the displacement of more than 2% of Ukraine's population. As of 2020, World Bank figures showed Ukraine had a population of 44 million.

The UNHCR predicts up to 4 million people could make an exodus out of Ukraine, though with the caveat that this figure too could increase.

At this rate, UNHCR spokesperson Shabia Mantoo said that "at this rate" Ukraine could experience "the biggest refugee crisis this century."

German TV to broadcast benefit 'Concert for Peace'

German television will broadcast a soldout "Concert for Peace" to raise funds for humanitarian aid for the people of Ukraine. The concert is being organized by the Berlin State Opera with Staatskapelle Berlin star conductor Daniel Barenboim.

The concert and television event will be in the form of a matinee scheduled for Sunday. Proceeds will go to the UN Ukraine Humanitarian Fund (UNHF).

The presidents of the European Central Bank (ECB), Christine Lagarde, and the Bundesbank, Joachim Nagel, will attend. Both central banks will make donations to the UNHF.

The Ukrainian national anthem, based on Pavlo Chubynsky's poem "Ukraine Has Not Yet Perished," set to music by Michailo Werbizki, will be included along with symphonies by Schubert and Beethoven.

The Berlin State Opera said its management and staff were "horrified, shocked and deeply concerned about the war that the Russian government has launched against Ukraine."

ICC proceeds with war crimes inquiry in Ukraine

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan QC announced he is opening an active investigation into war crimes occurring against the civilian population of Ukraine.

In a statement, Khan wrote, "I have notified the ICC Presidency a few moments ago of my decision to immediately proceed with active investigations in the Situation. Our work in the collection of evidence has now commenced."

Thirty-nine signatories to the court's jurisdiction, including Germany, referred the situation in Ukraine to the ICC, speeding up the course by which it could act.

Russia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty which established the ICC.

UN records 752 civilian deaths in Ukraine

The UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) monitoring mission in Ukraine said it had recorded 752 deaths among Ukrainian civilians since the conflict began at 4 a.m. (0300 GMT) on February 24. An additional 525 have reportedly been injured during the war.

In a statement, the monitoring mission noted, "This is more than the total number of civilian casualties recorded by OHCHR in the conflict zone of eastern Ukraine from 2018-2021," when 136 people were killed.

"Most of these casualties were caused by the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area, including shelling from heavy artillery and multi-launch rocket systems, and airstrikes," the UN body said.

The statement added that the UN "believes that real figures are considerably higher, especially in Government-controlled territory and especially in recent days, as the receipt of information from some locations where intensive hostilities have been going on was delayed and many reports were still pending corroboration."
Summary of events in Ukraine-Russia crisis on Wednesday

The Russian military said it took control of the southern city of Kherson, yet both the Ukrainian military and Pentagon disputed the claim.

The UN registered 752 civilian deaths in Ukraine since the invasion began on February 28.

A member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation's (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission was killed during an attack on the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.

Russia claims 498 of its troops have been killed so far, a number far lower than Ukrainian estimates.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the war has ushered in a "new era" for Europe and urged the continent to take charge of its own security.

Meanwhile, US top diplomat Antony Blinken described the death toll in Ukraine as "staggering" and voiced support for a cease-fire. President Joe Biden vowed to "inflict pain" on Russian Vladimir Putin in his State of the Union address.

A vast majority of member states in the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution calling for Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Russia, along with four other countries, voted against the measure.

Watch video 01:58 Guterres: 'The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear'

The International Criminal Court confirmed that it will open an investigation into the conflict in Ukraine.

In Germany, the mayor of Berlin is calling on other German states to assist in helping Ukrainian refugees.

In addition, Germany has pledged help for Ukrainian forces on the ground, with German weapons having arrived in the country.

Russia's economy has taken a hit due to Western sanctions, with international credit rating agency Fitch downgrading Russia to "B" and several multinational firms shuttering operations in Russia.

Jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny called for daily anti-war protests in Russia and Belarus to decry the invasion.

wd, ar/sms (AP, AFP, Reuters, dpa)

UN: Large majority backs condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine

Well over 100 UN member states voted to demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. China abstained from the vote rather than backing Moscow, only five countries voted against.



Only five states, including Russia itself, voted against the resolution

The UN General Assembly voted to demand Russia withdraw its troops from Ukraine by a large majority on Wednesday following its invasion of the country that began six days ago.

With 141 UN member states, out of a total of 193, backing the resolution, Moscow is finding itself increasingly isolated on the world stage.

Ahead of the vote, those behind the resolution had been hoping for at least 100 votes in favor, making the final figure quite unexpected.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock thanked those member states who voted for the resolution for this "historical result." She wrote on Twitter that the vote made clear "when our peaceful order is under attack, we stand together."

Key member states such as China and India, who have yet to explicitly condemn the invasion themselves, abstained, along with 33 others. Only five countries voted against: Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea.

Watch video 09:40 UN General Assembly adopts Ukraine resolution: DW's Richard Walker

Russia rejects resolution

The General Assembly resolution "demanded that the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and to refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force against any UN member state."

The text passed by the assembly also expressed "grave concern at reports of attacks on civilian facilities such as residences, schools and hospitals, and of civilian casualties, including women, older persons, persons with disabilities, and children."

Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, responded to the vote saying: "This document will not allow us to stop military activities."

Instead, he argued, it would encourage "radical forces" and "nationalists" in Kyiv.

Moscow has repeatedly referred to the democratically elected government of Ukraine as extremists, saying part of its campaign is to "de-nazify" the country, that is, to remove the government, including its Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Russia's goal is 'genocide'

The resolution was first presented to the assembly in an emergency meeting on Monday — only the 11th time such a meeting has been called in the UN's 77-year history. The international appeal is not legally binding, but the session was called after a similar resolution was halted by a Russian veto at the more powerful UN Security Council late last week.

"They have come to deprive Ukraine of the very right to exist," Ukraine's ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya told the Assembly ahead of the vote. "It's already clear that the goal of Russia is not an occupation only. It is genocide."

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of increasing "brutality."

"We've seen videos of Russian forces moving exceptionally lethal weaponry into Ukraine, which has no place on the battlefield that includes cluster munitions and vacuum bombs, which are banned under the Geneva Convention," she said.

Originally the text of the resolution said that the assembly "condemns" the invasion, but this was changed several times to broaden its appeal. In the end the assembly said it "deplores in the strongest terms the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine."

But the resolution did clarify that the UN was "condemning" Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to put his country's nuclear forces on alert.

ab/msh (dpa, AFP)

Ukraine: Zelenskyy says Russia wants to 'erase our country'

Ukraine's president has condemned Russia's attack on Kyiv, saying the conflict cannot be won with rockets and bombs. He also called on Jewish people to speak out after a missile strike damaged a Holocaust site.



Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned a Russian attack on Kyiv that damaged a Holocaust memorial

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday accused Russia of trying to "erase" his country and its history.

Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine six days ago with attacks on the capital, Kyiv, and other cities. Since then, hundreds of thousands of people have fled to safety in neighboring countries.

Speaking in a video address, Zelenskyy claimed that almost 6,000 Russian soldiers had been killed since the invasion began on Thursday, adding that Moscow cannot win the conflict with rockets and bombs.

Russia's Major General Igor Konashenkov later said 498 Russian troops had been killed and 1,597 more wounded, the first time Moscow had issued specific figures on casualties. He dismissed the higher death toll as "disinformation.''


A woman cuddles her newborn baby in her arms at a basement used as a bomb shelter at the Okhmadet children's hospital in central Kyiv

Strike damages Babyn Yar

Zelenskyy also condemned a Russian missile strike that hit a television tower in the capital and damaged the site of a Holocaust massacre, saying it shows that "for many people in Russia our Kyiv is completely foreign."

"They know nothing about our capital. About our history. But they have an order to erase our history. Erase our country. Erase us all," he said.

Kyiv's TV tower is next to the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial

Ukrainian authorities said five people were killed in the strike near the Babi Yar Holocaust memorial. During World War II, German occupying troops killed more than 33,000 Jews at the site.

"We all died again by Babyn Yar. Although the world has promised again and again that it will never happen again," said Zelenskyy, who is Jewish.

"Don't you see what is happening? That's why it is very important now that you, millions of Jews around the world, do not stay silent. Because Nazism is born in silence. Scream about murdering of civilians, scream about murdering of Ukrainians."

Holocaust remembrance organizations have also condemned the attack.

Russia claims control of Kherson

Russian forces have faced tougher than expected resistance since the invasion began and have not released their own casualty figures.

On Wednesday, Russia's army claimed to have taken control of the southern city of Kherson, while shelling continued in Mariupol and Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a massive Russian convoy has been inching toward Kyiv from the north.

DW correspondent Mathias Bölinger, who is in western Ukraine, said it was not clear what the massive Russian military convoy advancing toward Kyiv would do next.

"We have seen these columns standing there for some time. There are also questions about how long they can stand there because all the fuel and food that they have with them will be eaten away in the time they are standing there."

ICC to start 'active' probe into war crimes in Ukraine


Russian forces have shelled Ukraine's second-biggest city, Kharkiv

 (AFP/Sergey BOBOK) (Sergey BOBOK)

Jan HENNOP
Wed, March 2, 2022

The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor said Wednesday an active probe into possible war crimes in Ukraine "will immediately proceed" after his office received the backing of 39 countries.

The countries include all EU member states, as well as Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland and several Latin American countries.

"I have notified the ICC Presidency a few moments ago of my decision to immediately proceed with active investigations in the Situation" in Ukraine, Karim Khan wrote in a statement.

"Our work in the collection of evidence has now commenced," he added.

Khan announced Monday he was opening a probe into alleged war crimes committed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine last week.

Khan said he believed there was a "reasonable basis" to believe that crimes within the court's jurisdiction had been committed.

But he needed the Hague-based court's judges to approve his decision before going ahead.

However, the ICC countries' referral now means that Khan's probe can continue without the judges' approval, speeding up the process.

"These referrals enable my office to proceed with opening an investigation into the situation in Ukraine from 21 November 2013 onwards," Khan said.

That would include "any past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed on any part of the territory of Ukraine by any person," Khan said.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told parliament on Wednesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "guilty of a war crime" after civilians were bombed in Ukraine, echoing an earlier accusation by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Khan, who was recently appointed as prosecutor, said his probe will be conducted "objectively and independently" and focus on "ensuring accountability for crimes falling within ICC jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC was established in 2002 as an independent court to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC, however, can only prosecute crimes committed on the territory of its 123 member states.

Ukraine is not a member, but in 2014 accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.

Moscow withdrew from the ICC, so the court will only be able to reach Russians if they are arrested on the territory of a state that respects the jurisdiction of the court.

The ICC is also hampered by the fact that it has no police force and relies on state parties to detain suspects -- with varying success in the past.

jhe/lb

Whatever happens, Volodymyr Zelensky has already dropped a nuclear bomb on Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine

Mr. Zelensky, a former entertainer with keen instincts for social media and the art of persuasion, has dropped a nuclear bomb on Putin’s propaganda machine, Vinay Menon writes.

By Vinay Menon

Entertainment Columnist

TORSTAR
Tue., March 1, 2022

On Tuesday morning, Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to the world again.

It’s an eerie sight, to watch a man on live video, realizing he is trying to lead his nation as an unspeakably evil army closes in from all sides. Zelensky knows every hour could be his last.

He remains unbowed.

Not that long ago, Zelensky was a comedian, actor and beloved celebrity in his homeland.

He won Ukraine’s version of “Dancing with the Stars” in 2006. He was the voice of Paddington bear in the Ukrainian dub. He portrayed a president in the TV show, “Servant of the People.” Now life has imitated art and Mr. Zelenskyy has been cast into the role of wartime president. And he has captured our hearts and minds with astonishing courage and resolve.

So on Tuesday, as Russian cruise missiles targeted civilian enclaves and a 40-mile long convoy of military vehicles rumbled ominously toward Kyiv with marching orders of death and destruction, Zelenskyy continued to radiate calm and a singular focus on saving his besieged country from Vladimir Putin, a one-man crime against humanity.

Zelenskyy was addressing the European Parliament. The visual juxtaposition was jarring. He was in his military T-shirt, giving a speech while knowing he is No. 1 on Russia’s kill list. His audience was garbed in suits and dresses. And for the second time in a week, Zelenskyy’s spare eloquence caused the English translator to get choked up with emotion.

“We are fighting, just for our land, and our freedom,” relayed the translator, on live television around the world, his voice cracking.

No matter what happens to Zelenskyy — and I’m writing this with my heart in my throat — he has already won the media and information war against Russia. That is not for nothing. For two decades, the sociopathic scumbag Putin has built a lethal propaganda machine.

Putin has interfered with democratic elections, played a saboteur role in referendums such as Brexit, and destabilized the social order in more than 50 countries. His troll farms and bots and army of hackers have systematically hidden inside an ether Trojan Horse to jump straight into our skulls, amplifying culture wars and pitting neighbours against one another.

Disinformation was always an animating feature, not a bug, as Putin engaged in previous depraved assaults, including in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia and his first invasion of Ukraine, the 2014 annexation of Crimea. The bombs would fall. His troops would heinously target civilians. Then the Kremlin would issue patently false rationalizations and the world would either shrug or decide taking a stand against this repulsive strongman was not worth the price.

Those days are over. And they are over thanks to Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

He could have fled this conflict and attempted to lead a government in exile. He turned down offers by the United States and others to send in special forces and extract him from the madness. He wanted to be with his people. He may well die among his people. But as he said this weekend in another inspiring dispatch: “I am here. We will not lay down any weapons. We will defend our state because our weapons are our truth.”

Mr. Zelenskyy, a former entertainer with keen instincts for social media and the art of persuasion, has dropped a nuclear bomb on Putin’s propaganda machine. Aside from Tucker Carlson, a useful idiot at the best of times, nobody in the free world is now soft on Russia.

Zelenskyy’s videos, and status as a global folk hero, have helped galvanize NATO, reverse decades of foreign policy in Germany and compel Switzerland to abandon its neutrality. To Putin, Zelenskyy is a dead man walking. To the world, he is already immortal.

If Putin is such a “genius,” as declared by the former U.S. president, an idiot with no use, let’s tally the wins and losses. Russia is a pariah on the world stage. The ruble has cratered and is now worth about one Canadian penny. Moscow’s stock market has not even opened this week because regulators know the opening bell will be a closing death knell.

Every major multinational, including gas companies, are pulling out of the country. Big Tech, including Google, Facebook and Twitter, are no longer shrugging off Putin’s state deceptions and are actively muting his lies. Companies like Microsoft are proactively creating a firewall to impede Putin’s cyberwar actors. The world is waging non-military war on Russia.

And the world will win. This isn’t Putin’s latest aggression. It is his last stand.

Countries have banned Russia from their airspace. The assets of Russian oligarchs are frozen. Russia is no longer welcome in arts and sport. The harshest financial sanctions in history are reducing the Russian economy to a medieval hellscape in which citizens will have no choice but to revolt after realizing their life savings are now worth less than a sack of potatoes.

Putin’s twisted dreams of a Soviet empire are turning his country into North Korea.

And all credit should go to the brave and heroic president of Ukraine.

“Nobody is going to break us,” Zelenskyy said. “We are strong. We are Ukrainians.”

Badly outgunned, trying to repel an invading superpower all on his own, this 44-year-old has put on a clinic in true leadership I have not witnessed in my lifetime. And by weaponizing the truth, he has torched Putin’s pathological lying, now and forever.

Years ago, as an entertainer, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he loved bringing people together.

He just has in a way that will reshape the world.

Vinay Menon is the Star's pop culture columnist based in Toronto. Follow him on Twitter: @vinaymenon

KILL ALL MONSTERS...FOR UKRAINE

John Romero has released a new Doom 2 level to raise funds for Ukraine


By Shaun Prescott   PC GAMER

It's the first Doom 2 map Romero has released since 1994.

(Image credit: id Software | John Romero)

Doom co-creator John Romero returned to map making for the classic first-person shooter back in 2016, releasing two standalone maps in quick succession, followed by a bulky megawad in the form of 2019's Sigil. That was brilliant, by the way, and well-received enough that a sequel is coming, this time created for Doom 2. While we wait for that, Romero has just released a brand new Doom 2 level, with all proceeds going towards humanitarian efforts for Ukraine.

"To support the people of Ukraine and the humanitarian efforts of the Red Cross and the UN Central Emergency Response Fund, I’m releasing a new DOOM II level for a donation of €5," Romero tweeted, adding that 100% will go to those agencies.

Called 'One Humanity', this is actually the first Doom 2 level Romero has released since the game's launch in 1994. Sure, Doom 2 is pretty much the same as the original, with a bunch of extra monsters, the super shotgun, and some new textures, but it'll be interesting to see how many Archviles Romero throws into his new level. Hopefully no more than the one in the screenshot above. I'm begging you, John.

Doom's map making and modding community is still going strong after nearly 30 years, and Romero's Sigil megawad demonstrated that you can still do really cool and unexpected things with the Doom engine. Jeremy Peel played Sigil for us back in 2019, writing that "Romero may have vacated the editor long before I stepped into his levels, but it feels as if he’s still there watching—the devious stagehand pulling at levers, playing with my head, and most of all, having a tremendous time doing it."

Improved fuel cell performance using semiconductor manufacturing technology

by National Research Council of Science & Technology

Illustration of the step-by-step synthesis process for the preparation of ternary nanoparticle

 catalysts and electron structure rearrangement by electron transfer between metal atoms

. Credit: Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST)

A research team in Korea has synthesized metal nanoparticles that can drastically improve the performance of hydrogen fuel cell catalysts by using semiconductor manufacturing technology. The Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) announced that the research team led by Dr. Sung Jong Yoo of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Research Center has succeeded in synthesizing nanoparticles by a physical method rather than the existing chemical reactions by using the sputtering technology, which is a thin metal film deposition technology used in semiconductor manufacturing.

Metal nanoparticles have been studied in various fields over the past few decades. Recently, metal nanoparticles have been attracting attention as a critical catalyst for hydrogen fuel cells and water electrolysis systems to produce hydrogen. Metal nanoparticles are mainly prepared through complex chemical reactions. In addition, they are prepared using organic substances harmful to the environment and humans. Therefore, additional costs are inevitably incurred for their treatment, and the synthesis conditions are challenging. Therefore, a new nanoparticle synthesis method that can overcome the shortcomings of the existing chemical synthesis is required to establish the hydrogen energy regime.

The sputtering process applied by the KIST research team is a technology that coats a thin metal film during the semiconductor manufacturing process. In this process, plasma is used to cut large metals into nanoparticles, which are then deposited on a substrate to form a thin film. The research team prepared nanoparticles using "glucose," a special substrate that prevented the transformation of the metal nanoparticles to a thin film by using plasma during the process. The synthesis method used the principle of physical vapor deposition using plasma rather than chemical reactions. Therefore, metal nanoparticles could be synthesized using this simple method, overcoming the limitations of the existing chemical synthesis methods.

Low- and high-magnification TEM images of PtCo/C and PtCoV/C. Credit: Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST)

The development of new catalysts has been hindered because the existing chemical synthesis methods limited the types of metals that could be used as nanoparticles. In addition, the synthesis conditions must be changed depending on the type of metal. However, it has become possible to synthesize nanoparticles of more diverse metals through the developed synthesis method. In addition, if this technology is simultaneously applied to two or more metals, alloy nanoparticles of various compositions can be synthesized. This would lead to the development of high-performance nanoparticle catalysts based on alloys of various compositions.

The KIST research team synthesized a platinum-cobalt-vanadium alloy nanoparticle catalyst using this technology and applied for the oxygen reduction reaction in hydrogen fuel cell electrodes. As a result, the catalyst activity was seven and three times higher than those of platinum and platinum-cobalt alloy catalysts that are commercially used as catalysts for hydrogen fuel cells, respectively. Furthermore, the researchers investigated the effect of the newly added vanadium on other metals in the nanoparticles. They found that vanadium improved the catalyst performance by optimizing the platinum–oxygen bonding energy through computer simulation.

Dr. Sung Jong Yoo of KIST commented, "Through this research, we have developed a synthesis method based on a novel concept, which can be applied to research focused on metal nanoparticles toward the development of water electrolysis systems, solar cells, petrochemicals." He added, "We will strive to establish a complete hydrogen economy and develop carbon-neutral technology by applying alloy nanoparticles with new structures, which has been difficult to implement, to [develop] eco-friendly energy technologies including hydrogen fuel cells." Large-scale synthesis methods for single-atom catalysts for alkaline fuel cells

More information: Injoon Jang et al, Plasma-induced alloying as a green technology for synthesizing ternary nanoparticles with an early transition metal, Nano Today (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.nantod.2021.101316

Journal information: Nano Today 

Provided by National Research Council of Science & Technology

Biofuels may not be as green as we've been told

Are biofuels better for the environment?

Not necessarily.

By Christopher McFadden

Feb 27, 2022

INTERESTING ENGINEERING

LONG READ

Biofuel factory.photosbyjim/iStock

The combustion engine is, hands down, one of the most important inventions of all time. But, it comes with a very high cost to the environment - hazardous emissions.

While many leaps in efficiency and emission control have been made over the decades, we can never fully eliminate the release of emissions like carbon dioxide into the air. But, what if the fuel for these engines could be grown rather than dug up?

And that is precisely the promise that biofuels have made over the last few decades. However, not everything is all that it seems when it comes to this "holy grail" of clean energy.

What are biofuels?

Biofuels, as the name might suggest, are types of liquid and gas fuels created "naturally" through the conversion of some kind of biomass. While the term can be used to encompass solid fuels, like wood, these are more commonly termed biomass rather than biofuel per se.

For this reason, biomass tends to be used to denote the raw material that biofuels are derived from or those solid fuels that are created by thermally or chemically altering raw materials into things like torrefied pellets or briquettes.

YinYang/iStock

Various forms of biofuels exist but are by far the most commonly used today are ethanol (sometimes called bioethanol) and biodiesel.

The former is an alcohol and is usually blended with more conventional fuels, like gasoline, to increase octane and cut down on the toxic carbon monoxide and smog-causing emissions usually associated with combustion engines. The most common form of the blend, called E10, is a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline.

Some more modern vehicles, called flexible-fuel vehicles, can actually run on another blend of ethanol and gasoline called E85 that contains between 51 percent and 83 percent ethanol. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 98% of all gasoline you put in your car will contain some percentage of ethanol.

Most ethanol for fuel use is made from plant starches and sugars but there are an increasing number of biofuels in development that use cellulose and hemicellulose. These are the non-edible fibrous material that constitutes the bulk of plant matter. To date, several commercial-scale cellulose-based ethanol biorefineries are currently operational in the United States.

The most common plant "feedstock" used to make ethanol, are corn, grain, and sugar cane.

As with alcohol production, as for your favorite beer or wine, bioethanol is created through the age-old process of fermentation. As with alcoholic beverages, microorganisms like bacteria and yeast use plant sugars as an energy source and produce ethanol as a waste product.

This ethanol can then be fractionated off, distilled, and concentrated ready for use as a liquid fuel. All is well and good, but blending with ethanol does come at a cost.

Seanpanderson/Wikimedia Commons

As the U.S. Department of Energy explains, "ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, to varying degrees, depending on the volume percentage of ethanol in the blend. Denatured ethanol (98% ethanol) contains about 30% less energy than gasoline per gallon. Ethanol’s impact on fuel economy is dependent on the ethanol content in the fuel and whether an engine is optimized to run on gasoline or ethanol."

Biodiesel, the other most common biofuel, is made from vegetable and animal fats and is generally considered a cleaner-burning direct replacement for petroleum-based diesel fuel. It is non-toxic, biodegradable, and is produced using a combination of alcohol and vegetable oil, animal fat, or recycled cooking grease. It is a mono-alkyl ester produced by the process of transesterification, where the feedstock reacts with an alcohol (such as methanol) in the presence of a catalyst, to produce biodiesel and glycerin.

Like ethanol, biodiesel can be blended with regular diesel to make cleaner fuels. Such fuels range from pure biodiesel, called B100, with the most common blend, B20, consisting of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent fossil-fuel diesel.

Just like ethanol, biodiesel is not without its own problems when compared to more traditional fuels. For example, it can be problematic in colder climates as it has a tendency to crystallize. Generally speaking, the less biodiesel content, the better the performance of the fuel in cold climates.

This issue can also be overcome by adding something called a "flow improver" that can be added to the fuel to prevent it from freezing.

Another form of biodiesel that is also quite popular is "green diesel", or renewable diesel. Formed by the hydrocracking of vegetable oils or animal fats (or through gasification, pyrolysis, or other biochemical and thermochemical technologies) to produce a product that is almost indistinguishable from conventional diesel.

Vegetable oil can also be used unmodified as a fuel source in some older diesel engines that don't have common fuel injection systems.

razvanchirnoaga/iStock

Other forms of biofuel also exist, including biogas or biomethane that are created through the process of anaerobic digestion (basically rotting) of organic material. "Syngas," another form of biofuel gas is created by mixing carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and other hydrocarbons through the partial combustion of biomass.

Worldwide biofuel production reached in excess of 43 billion gallons (161 billion liters) in 2021, constituting around 4% of all the world's fuel used for road transportation. This is hoped by some organizations, like the International Energy Agency, to increase to 25% by 2050.

Why are biofuels considered green?

In order to fully answer this question, we need to take a little trip back in time. Around the turn of the 21st-century, many governments around the world were scratching their heads trying to figure out ways to combat the amount of carbon emissions their countries were emitting.

One of the main polluting activities happened to be the cars and trucks used to ferry people and stuff around. In fact, this is one of the largest contributing factors to human global carbon dioxide emissions that, according to some sources, account for almost a quarter of all annual emissions around the world.

The transport sector is also one of the fastest-growing around the world, as a result of the growing use of personal cars in many countries around the world. Of these, the vast majority are still combustion-engine vehicles rather than "cleaner" solutions like the growing electrical vehicle market.

Mailson Pignata/iStock

Something, in their view, needed to be done about this and so the concept of biofuels was proposed as a potential "silver bullet".

Since biofuels are formed, primarily, from the growth and harvesting of living plant material rather than long-sequestered hydrocarbon sources like fossil fuels. The main argument is that biofuels draw down as much carbon dioxide, more or less, as they release when combusted. This is because carbon is stored in the plant tissue and soil as plants grow.

They are, in effect, "carbon neutral", and in some cases have been shown to be carbon negative - in other words, they remove more carbon from the atmosphere than is released when they are harvested, processed, and burned/converted.

There are other benefits to biofuel feedstocks too, including, but not limited to, the generation of co-products like protein that can be as animal feed. This saves energy (and therefore associated carbon dioxide emissions) that would otherwise have been used to make animal feed by other means.

To this end, some countries went full-bore with the idea, with countries like Brazil establishing a full-blown bioethanol industry about 40 years ago. Other countries began to follow suit. In 2005, the United States established its first national renewable fuel standard under the "Energy Policy Act". This piece of legislation called for 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels to be used annually by 2012.

This act also required fossil fuel-producing companies to mix biofuels with regular liquid fuels to reduce their long-term impact on the environment. The European Union produced a similar requirement in its 2008 "Renewable Energy Directive", which required EU countries to source at least 10 percent of their transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020.

The stringent requirement has resulted in a huge growth in the biofuel industry around the world. But, how accurate are the claims that biofuels are better for the environment than, say, fossil fuels?

Are biofuels actually better for the environment?

Like anything in life, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as a perfect solution, only a compromise. For all the benefits that products like biofuels yield, they have some very important drawbacks and even environmental impacts that cannot be ignored if we are being truly honest about them.

For example, the widely held claim that biofuels are carbon-neutral, or even negative, is not all that it claims to be. Various studies on this subject have shown that different biofuels vary widely in their greenhouse emissions when compared, like-for-like, with gasoline.

Biofuel feedstocks have many other associated costs with their production, such as harvesting, processing, and transportation that are often not always factored into calculations or are outright ignored. In some cases, depending on the methods used to produce the feedstock and process the fuel, more greenhouse gas emissions can arise when compared to fossil fuels.

Discussion on this topic tends to place the most emphasis on carbon dioxide, but it is but one of the many harmful emissions that can have very serious consequences on the environment. Nitrous oxide, NOx for short, is another.

Not only is NOx an important component for the formation of harmful effects like acid rain, but it also has a very significant so-called "global warming potential" orders of magnitude higher than carbon dioxide - around 300 times in fact. Not only that, but nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for far longer - 114 years compared to about 4 years for carbon dioxide.

NOx also happens to be particularly bad for the ozone layer too - which is not nice. And it doesn't end there.

Nitrous oxides are generated at others stages of biofuel production and final use when combusted as an actual fuel on your car.

aydinmutlu/iStock

In fairness, all forms of agriculture release nitrous oxide to some degree, so biofuel production should not be blamed in isolation for any increase in NOx emissions over the last few decades, but since it is promoted heavily by many governments, there is an urgent need for more research to be done on the impact of biofuels on NOx emissions.

Another potentially important difference between biofuels and conventional fossil fuels is carbonyl emissions. Carbonyl is a divalent chemical unit consisting of carbon (C) and an oxygen (O) atom connected by a double bond and is a constituent part of molecules like carboxylic acids, esters, anhydrides, acyl halides, amides, and quinones, among other compounds.

Some carbonyls, like those listed above, are known to be potentially very hazardous to human health. Studies on this subject have found that biofuels, like biodiesels, release considerably more carbonyl emissions like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propionaldehyde, and butyraldehyde, than pure diesel.

Yet other studies have revealed that the combustion of biofuels also comes with an elevated emission of some other hazardous pollutants like volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic HCs, and heavy metals) have been reported to endanger human health.

Another very serious issue with biofuels is their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes. For example, land clearance of forests or grasslands to release land for biofuel production has a very serious impact on the environment.

Scharfsinn86/iStock

Some studies have shown that this kind of activity can release hundreds to thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare for the sake of "saving" 1.8 tonnes per hectare per year for maize grown for bioethanol or 8.6 tonnes per hectare per year for switchgrass. The land is also converted from growing food for consumption to biomass for use in fuel.

This has been reinforced only recently, with a study on the use of corn-ethanol fuels in the U.S. This study identified that the rise in demand for corn as a feedstock for biofuels resulted in a jump in price and, therefore, incentivize the conversion of land for the cultivation of corn.

Other studies also show a serious "opportunity cost" for using valuable land in this way too. If governments are serious about reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the land, if converted from the forest, for example, should have been left the way it was. A better strategy might be to actually reforest existing farmland that has been converted for biofuel production as well.

The conversion of wild virgin lands for biofuel production also has serious implications for biodiversity and local habitats too for obvious reasons. Research also suggests that the production of biofuel feedstocks such as corn and soy, could increase water pollution from nutrients, pesticides, and sediment and deplete aquifers.

There is another area where biofuels appear to be considerably safer for the environment, however - biodegradation. Various studies have shown that biofuels, neat vegetable oils, biodiesel, petroleum diesel blends, and neat 2-D diesel fuel tend to break down in the environment much faster than conventional petrol or diesel.

Under controlled conditions, these substances are broken down about 5 times faster than petroleum or diesel and also leave far fewer toxic byproducts. This is encouraging and would indicate that events such as oil spills could be less of an environmental disaster if the tanker is filled with biofuels.

So, are biofuels all they are cracked up to be?

In short, yes, but also no. While some biofuels are clearly better for the environment than continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels, a more all-encompassing view needs to be taken by regulators and decision-makers. Not all biofuels and methods of biofuel production have the same impact

.

BanksPhotos/iStock

We have already covered some of the issues above, like focussing on reforestation instead, but other things can also be done, too.

Energy conservation and improved efficiency are critical factors. The combustion engine, while receiving a lot of bad press over recent decades, is still one of the best machines for converting fuel to do useful work that our species has ever devised.


It has quite literally revolutionized our way of life. If more focus was put on improving their efficiency than outright banning them, significant improvements in emissions could be made over time.

According to some studies, in the United States, an improvement in efficiency by only one mile per gallon for every vehicle has been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than all "savings" provided by all biofuel maize production. Other incremental improvements are also in development that could further improve the efficiency of combustion engines too.

One example, called Transient Plasma Ignition, is a like-for-like replacement for traditional spark plugs that have been shown to dramatically increase combustion efficiency in combustion engines by as much as 20%. These kinds of spark plugs also benefit from a longer lifespan than conventional ones.


But, such solutions still rely on the digging up and use of fossil fuels. With the drive, pun intended, for the decarbonization of many economies around the world, such technologies only realistically offer a brief reprieve for the internal combustion engine going forward.

But, that doesn't mean research and development in this field should be eased up. Any benefits made to the efficiency of internal combustion can be used to also, albeit indirectly, increase the efficiency of biofuels in combustion engines.

Keeratikorn Suttiwong/iStock

But, there are some areas where biofuels are clearly advantageous. In many cases, biowaste from other industrial processes can be turned into biofuels rather than thrown away. Whether it be digestion of waste food to make biogas/bio-LPG or turning waste products from beer production into biofuel.

And it is this that might, in the end, might be the main benefit of biofuels over their conventional fossil fuel alternatives. If more emphasis is put on using the waste products from existing processes to make biofuels rather than converting virgin land or agricultural land for feedstock crops, we can get all the benefits of biofuels with less of its environmental costs.

That is, of course, as long as our species continues to use combustion-based energy production. Which is likely going to continue for many years to come.

They are, after all, so good at what they do.