Vaccines for the Rich

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI 

 SEPTEMBER 18, 2020

Self-interest speaks all sorts of tongues, and plays all sorts of roles, even that of disinterestedness.

– François Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Reflections    

It was a disappointing headline, but it didn’t come as much of a surprise. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 1, 2020.  It was short and to the point.  “Nations With Wealth Tie Up Vaccine Doses.” That which could be considered a harbinger of the headline, insofar as the United States is concerned, had occurred almost four months earlier.

On May 18, 2020, the trump told  the World Health Organization Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,  that if the WHO didn’t make “major substantive improvements” within 30 days the United States would permanently withhold future funding and withdraw from the organization. Always eager to follow through on threats, and by nature, impatient,  the trump concluded he could not wait the full 30 days.  On May 29^th he announced that he was terminating the relationship with the WHO immediately and was withholding all future funding.  He did not address what arrangements he planned to make for the United States to pay the $203 million it owed for 2020 and previous years.

Although this was not addressed in the withdrawal announcement, we have now learned that in addition to saving money by no longer participating in the WHO, the trump is declining to participate in the WHO’s efforts to find a vaccine to treat the pandemic. One hundred seventy-two nations have signed up to be part of a global effort led by the WHO to develop, manufacture and equitably distribute a coronavirus vaccine known as the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax) Facility. The critical word in that description is “equitable.”  The undertaking  is a joint effort and when a vaccine is found that is effective and safe, all the participants in the project will be promised enough vaccine to cover 20% of their populations.  The vaccine will first be distributed to the high-risk segments of the population of each participating country. It is hoped that there will be 2 billion doses available by the end of 2021.

The WHO project is important for all the participants, but it is especially important for the small nations that are unable to develop or acquire a developed vaccine on their own. By not permitting the United States to participate,  the trump is depriving the WHO effort of funding it desperately needs to develop the vaccine.  It is also letting it be known that since it is a project of the WHO, the trump doesn’t  care what happens to those who will suffer if the project sponsored by the WHO is unsuccessful because of its lack of funding.

Trump’s refusal to participate is not, as one might suppose, the result of mindless truculence.  His refusal was eloquently explained by a spokesman for the White House who said: “The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus, but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China.”

By taking this approach the trump is betting on the United States coming up with its own vaccine before those working with the WHO.  Should the WHO win the race, the United States  would not be entitled to share in the vaccines developed by the WHO. That is not terribly worrisome for the trump.  That is because the trump, the European Union, Japan and the UK have already entered into contracts with Western drug makers to purchase 3.7 billion doses of vaccine even though the vaccines have not yet been developed. The purchase agreements include options to buy additional doses.  The assumption is that the companies which have  contracts will be successful in developing vaccines before the consortium led by the WHO.

Developing countries have reason to be concerned as the WSJ headline suggests.  If the consortium led by the United States beats the WHO to the punch, the less developed countries will be left out. As the assistant director-general at the WHO said, when discussing the upcoming competition to develop the vaccine:   “Next year is a year of scarce resources.  Whatever we have, it won’t be enough to vaccinate everyone.  It is in everybody’s self-interest to collaborate globally because we need this pandemic controlled in all countries.”  The trump and his cronies are oblivious to this need.  In a press briefing in June, an administration official said:  “Let’s take care of Americans first.  To the extent there is surplus, we have an interest in ensuring folks around the world are vaccinated.”

As with so many trumpian statements and actions, the trump and his cronies have shown us yet another way the trump is making America great again.  And it gives us all the rest of us cause to pause and consider whether we want to continue to live in a country the greatness of which is being defined by a man of no character and puny intellect.

Reducing CO2 Emissions to Reverse Global Warming

by MANUEL GARCÍA, JR. COUNTERPUNCH

 

 SEPTEMBER 18, 2020

We know that Global Warming can be reduced during the years of the century ahead of us if we — our civilization — steadily reduces its emissions of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) into the atmosphere.

Given a specific rate for the reduction of anthropogenic (our CO2) emissions:

+ how long will it take to return Earth’s average temperature to its unperturbed pre-industrial level?, and

+ how much higher will Global Warming (Earth’s temperature) become before it begins to decrease?

Answering these questions is the subject of my recent study. This work is based on a Carbon Balance Model, which I described in an earlier report. [1]

That model has been further refined in order to address these questions, and the details of that refinement are described in a technical report. [2]

Prior to the buildup of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the air, the fluxes of CO2 released by the respiration of Life-on-Earth; and the fluxes of CO2 absorbed from the air by photosynthesis, the surface waters of the oceans, and rock weathering chemical reactions; were in balance. That balance is known as the Carbon Cycle.

As the rate and buildup of anthropogenic emissions increased (after ~1750, but particularly from the mid-20th century), the Carbon Cycle was perturbed out of balance, and the magnitude of that imbalance is determined by the difference between two effects: Anthropogenic Sources, and Stimulated Sinks.

The Anthropogenic Sources are:

+ the CO2 emissions by the human activities of fossil-fueled energy generation and industry, and

+ the CO2 emissions from land use changes (deforestation and its attendant increase of wildfires).

The Stimulated Sinks are the additional absorption of CO2 by photosynthesis and the surface waters of the oceans, because of higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. At a sufficiently high level of atmospheric CO2 concentration, both these sinks will saturate — stop absorbing CO2. What that “sufficiently high level” is remains uncertain.

The work summarized here includes more realistic (more complicated) models of these source and sink terms in the rate equation for the change of the Carbon Balance over time.

Now I am able to quantitatively link specific rates of the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to consequent projected histories of the slowing and then reversal of Global Warming.

Such quantitative linkages have long been featured in the super-computer models of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, by the major Climate Science institutes; but now I have my own quantitative version of this correlation, which is analytical (expressed as math formulas, and enumerated with a hand calculator and basic home computer).

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in year 2020 are 42.2GtCO2/y (42.2 giga-metric-tons of CO2 per year = 42.2*10⁺¹² kilograms/year). This magnitude of total anthropogenic emissions, E, is the addition of our fossil-fueled and land use emissions.

I considered three cases of the intentional steady reduction of annual human-caused CO2 emissions, which are defined to decrease exponentially. The characteristic decay time of each case is: 40 years (CASE 1, a 2.5% annual reduction), 100 years (CASE 2, a 1% annual reduction), and 200 years (CASE 3, a 0.5% annual reduction).

Hietkamp Trends C (2020-2120)

Emissions would be reduced to half their initial rate in 28 years for CASE 1; in 69 years for CASE 2; and in 139 years for CASE 3.

If each of these reduction plans were alternatively initiated in the year 2020, then:

CASE #1, ∆t=40y:

This trend reaches a peak of 449ppm and +1.32°C in year 2048 (in 28 years); it remains above 440ppm and +1.25°C over the years 2032 to 2064 (between 12 to 44 years from now); then descends to 350ppm and +0.56°C in year 2120 (in 100 years); and 300ppm and +0.18°C in year 2140 (in 120 years).

CASE #2, ∆t=100y:

This trend reaches a peak plateau of 485ppm and +1.6°C over the years 2078 to 2088 (between 58 and 68 years from now); it remains above 480ppm and +1.56°C during years 2066 to 2100 (between 46 and 80 years from now); it descends to 350ppm and +0.56°C in year 2202 (in 182 years); and 300ppm and +0.18°C in year 2225 (in 205 years).

CASE #3, ∆t=200y:

This trend reaches a peak plateau of 524ppm and +1.9°C over the years 2125 to 2135 (between 105 and 115 years from now); it remains above 500ppm and +1.72°C between years 2075 and 2190 (between 55 and 170 years from now); and descends down to 360ppm and +0.64°C in year 2300 (in 280 years).

Hietkamp Trends T (2020-2120)

Message to the Humans

The singular challenge for the progressive political and social elements of our civilization is to awaken the rest of the world — and particularly the “developed” and “developing” high-emissions nations — to a full commitment (demonstrated by action) to steadily and significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the rest of human history.

The sooner such reduction programs are initiated, and the greater the vigor with which they are implemented, the sooner we will begin slowing the advance of Global Warming and its continuing erosion of the habitability of Planet Earth, which humans have enjoyed for over 2 million years, and particularly since the end of the Ice Ages (~11,000 year ago).

With decades to a century of discipline applied to this purpose, we can even reverse Global Warming. The longer we wait to do this, the worse the consequences we will have to suffer through, and the longer it would take to extricate our species — and so many other wonderful forms of Life-on-Earth — from the Hell-on-Earth we are creating by our willful and destructive ignorance.

I can only imagine such major programs of CO2 emissions reductions being synonymous with the economic, political and social uplift of the vast majority of people, because Global Warming is directly caused by the unbounded economic, political and social exploitation of the many by the few.

The fact is that we all live on the same planet, and whatever happens to it — whether worsening conflagration and flooding in the now, or eventual cooling and restoration by human commitment — will affect everybody. There is no guaranteed escape.

The CO2 accumulation model that I have described here is just this old scientist’s way of saying: We can do so much better for ourselves, and our children deserve that we try.

NOTES

[1] A Carbon Balance Model of Atmospheric CO2

11 September 2020, [PDF file]

https://manuelgarciajr.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/a-carbon-balance-model-of-atmospheric-co2.pdf

[2] Trends for Reducing Global Warming

15 September 2020, [PDF file]

https://manuelgarciajr.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/trends-for-reducing-global-warming.pdf

Manuel Garcia Jr, once a physicist, is now a lazy househusband who writes out his analyses of physical or societal problems or interactions. He can be reached at mangogarcia@att.net

Germany: 

US Nuclear Weapons Shamed in Nationwide Debate

by JOHN LAFORGE

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020

 

Photograph Source: antony_mayfield – CC BY 2.

We need a broad public debate … about the sense and nonsense of nuclear deterrence.

—Rolf Mutzenich, German Social Democratic Party Leader

Public criticism of the US nuclear weapons deployed in Germany bloomed into a vigorous nationwide debate this past spring and summer focused on the controversial scheme known diplomatically as “nuclear sharing” or “nuclear participation.”

“The end of this nuclear participation is currently being discussed as intensely as was, not so long ago, the exit from nuclear power,” wrote Roland Hipp, a managing director of Greenpeace Germany, in a June article for the newspaper Welt.

The 20 US nuclear bombs that are stationed at Germany’s Büchel Air Base have become so unpopular, that mainstream politicians and religious leaders have joined anti-war organizations in demanding their ouster and have promised to make the weapons a campaign issue in next year’s national elections.

Today’s public debate in Germany may have been prompted by Belgium’s Parliament, which on January 16 came close to expelling the US weapons stationed at its Kleine Brogel airbase. By a vote of 74 to 66, the members barely defeated a measure that directed the government “to draw up, as soon as possible, a roadmap aiming at the withdrawal of nuclear weapons on Belgian territory.” The debate came after the parliament’s foreign affairs committee adopted a motion calling for both the weapons’ removal from Belgium, and for the country’s ratification of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Belgium’s lawmakers may have been prompted to reconsider the government’s “nuclear sharing,” when on February 20, 2019 three members of the European Parliament were arrested on Belgium’s Kleine Brogel base, after they boldly scaled a fence and carried a banner directly onto the runway.

Replacement Fighter Jets Set to Carry US Bombs

Back in Germany, defense minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer raised an uproar April 19 after a report in Der Spiegel said she had emailed Pentagon boss Mark Esper saying that Germany planned to buy 45 Boeing Corporation F-18 Super Hornets. Her comments brought howls from the Bundestag and the minister walked back her claim, telling reporters April 22, “No decision has been taken (on which planes will be chosen) and, in any case, the ministry can’t make that decision—only parliament can.”

Nine days later, in an interview with daily Tagesspiegel published May 3, Rolf Mützenich, Germany’s parliamentary leader of the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD)—a member of Angela Merkel’s governing coalition—made a clear denunciation.

“Nuclear weapons on German territory do not heighten our security, just the opposite,” they undermine it, and should be removed, Mützenich said, adding that he was opposed to both “prolonging nuclear participation” and to “replacing the tactical US nuclear weapons stored in Büchel with new nuclear warheads.”

Mützenich’s mention of “new” warheads is a reference to US construction of hundreds of the new, first-ever “guided” nuclear bombs—the” B61-12s”—set to be delivered to five NATO states in the coming years, replacing the B61-3s, 4s, and 11s reportedly stationed in Europe now.

The SPD’s co-president Norbert Walter-Borjähn quickly endorsed Mützenich’s statement, agreeing that the US bombs should be withdrawn, and both were immediately criticized by Foreign Minister Heiko Mass, by US diplomats in Europe, and by NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg directly.

Anticipating the backlash, Mützenich published a detailed defense of his position May 7 in the Journal for International Politics and Society, [1] where he called for a “debate about the future of nuclear sharing and the question of whether the US tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Germany and Europe increase the level of safety for Germany and Europe, or whether they have perhaps become obsolete now from a military and security policy perspective.”

“We need a broad public debate … about the sense and nonsense of nuclear deterrence,” Mützenich wrote.

NATO’s Stoltenberg hastily penned a rebuttal for the May 11 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, using 50-year-old yarns about “Russian aggression” and claiming that nuclear sharing means “allies, like Germany, make joint decisions on nuclear policy and planning …, and “give[s] allies a voice on nuclear matters that they would not otherwise have.”

This is flatly untrue, as Mutzenich made clear in his paper, calling it a “fiction” that the Pentagon nuclear strategy is influenced by US allies. “There is no influence or even a say by non-nuclear powers on the nuclear strategy or even the possible uses of nuclear [weapons]. This is nothing more than a long-held pious wish,” he wrote.

Most of the attacks on the SPF leader sounded like the one May 14 from then US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, whose op/ed in the newspaper De Welt urged Germany to keep the US “deterrent” and claimed that withdrawing the bombs would be a “betrayal” of Berlin’s NATO commitments.

Then US Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher went round the bend with a May 15 Twitter post, writing that “if Germany wants to reduce its nuclear sharing potential …, maybe Poland, which honestly fulfills its obligations … could use this potential at home.” Mosbacher’s suggestion was broadly ridiculed as preposterous because the Nonproliferation Treaty forbids such nuclear weapons transfers, and because stationing US nuclear bombs on the Russia border would be a dangerously destabilizing provocation.

NATO “nuclear sharing” nations have no say in dropping US H-bombs

On May 30, the National Security Archive in Washington, DC, confirmed Mützenich’s position and put the lie to Stoltenberg’s disinformation, releasing a formerly “top secret” State Department memo affirming that the US will alone decide whether to use its nuclear weapons based in Holland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Belgium.

Moral and ethical shaming of the nuclear weapons in Büchel has recently come from high-ranking church leaders. In the deeply religious Rhineland-Pfalz region of the airbase, bishops have begun demanding that the bombs be withdrawn. Catholic Bishop Stephan Ackermann from Trier spoke out for nuclear abolition near the base in 2017; the Peace Appointee of the Lutheran Church of Germany, Renke Brahms, spoke to a large protest gathering there in 2018; Lutheran Bishop Margo Kassmann addressed the annual church peace rally there in July 2019; and this August 6, Catholic Bishop Peter Kohlgraf, who heads the German faction of Pax Christi, promoted nuclear disarmament in the nearby city of Mainz.

More fuel kindled the high-profile nuclear discussion with the June 20 publication of an Open Letter to the German fighter pilots at Büchel, signed by 127 individuals and 18 organizations, calling on them to “terminate direct involvement” in their nuclear war training, and reminding them that “Illegal orders may neither be given nor obeyed.”

The “Appeal to the Tornado pilots of Tactical Air Force Wing 33 at the Büchel nuclear bomb site to refuse to participate in nuclear sharing” covered over half a page of the regional Rhein-Zeitung newspaper, based in Koblenz.

The Appeal, which is based on binding international treaties that forbid military planning of mass destruction, had earlier been sent to Colonel Thomas Schneider, commander of the pilots’ 33rd Tactical Air Force Wing at Büchel air base.

The Appeal urged the pilots to refuse unlawful orders and stand down: “[T]he use of nuclear weapons is illegal under international law and the constitution. This also makes the holding of nuclear bombs and all supporting preparations for their possible deployment illegal. Illegal orders may neither be given nor obeyed. We appeal to you to declare to your superiors that you no longer wish to participate in supporting nuclear sharing for reasons of conscience.”

Greepeace Germany inflated its message balloon just outside the Büchel air force base in Germany (in photo in background), joining the campaign to oust the US nuclear weapons stationed there.

Roland Hipp, a co-director of Greenpeace Germany, in “How Germany makes itself the target of a nuclear attack” published in Welt June 26, noted that going non-nuclear is the rule not the exception in NATO. “There are already [25 of the 30] countries within NATO that have no US nuclear weapons and do not join in nuclear participation,” Hipp wrote.

In July, the debate partly focused on the colossal financial expense of replacing the German Tornado jet fighters with new H-bomb carriers in a time of multiple global crises.

Dr. Angelika Claussen, a psychiatrist a vice president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, wrote in a July 6 posting that “[A] significant military build-up in times of the coronavirus pandemic is perceived as a scandal by the German public … Buying 45 nuclear F-18 bombers means spending [about] 7.5 billion Euros. For this amount of money one could pay 25,000 doctors and 60,000 nurses a year, 100,000 intensive care beds and 30,000 ventilators.”

Dr. Claussen’s figures were substantiated by a July 29 report by Otfried Nassauer and Ulrich Scholz, military analysts with the Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security. The study found the cost of 45 F-18 fighter jets from the US weapons giant Boeing Corp. could be “at a minimum” between 7.67 and 8.77 billion Euros, or between $9 and $10.4 billion—or about $222 million each.

Germany’s potential $10 billion payout to Boeing for its F-18s is a cherry that the war profiteer dearly wants to pick. Germany’s Defense Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer has said her government also intends to buy 93 Eurofighters, made by the France-based multinational behemoth Airbus, at the comparably bargain rate of $9.85 billion—$111 million each—all to replace the Tornadoes by 2030.

In August, SPD leader Mützenich promised to make the “sharing” of US nuclear weapons a 2021 election issue, telling the daily Suddeutsche Zeitung, “I am firmly convinced that if we ask this question for the election program, the answer is relatively obvious…. [W]e will continue this issue next year.”

John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.

The Difference Between the U.S. and China’s Response to COVID-19 is Staggering

by VIJAY PRASHAD – JOHN ROSS COUNTERPUNCH

 SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

Photograph Source: Walter Grassroot – CC0

In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s new book, Rage, he reports on interviews he did in February and March with U.S. President Donald Trump about the coronavirus. Trump admitted that the virus was virulent, but he decided to underplay its danger. “I wanted to always play it down,” Trump said, “because I don’t want to create a panic.” Despite months of warnings from the Chinese authorities, Trump and his health secretary Alex Azar completely failed to prepare for the global pandemic.

The United States continues to have the largest total number of cases of COVID-19. The government continues to flounder as the number of cases escalates. Not one state in the country seems immune to the spread of the disease.

Meanwhile, in China, ever since the virus was crushed in Wuhan, the government merely has had to contain small-scale localized outbreaks; in the last month, China has had zero domestically transmitted COVID-19 cases. Martin Wolf wrote in the Financial Times on March 31 that China was successful in “bringing the disease under control in Hubei and halting its spread across China.” There was never a pan-China outbreak. It is more accurate to call it a Hubei outbreak.

Measuring People’s Lives

While Trump lied to his own citizens about the disease, China’s president Xi Jinping said that his government would be “putting people first.” China hastily subordinated its economic priorities to the task of saving lives.

As a consequence of a science-based approach, China’s government broke the chain of infection very quickly. By early September, this country of 1.4 billion had 85,194 COVID-19 cases and 4,634 deaths (India, with a comparable population, had 4.8 million cases and 80,026 deaths; India is losing more lives each week than the total deaths in China).

The United States, meanwhile, has suffered from 198,680 deaths and 6.7 million cases. In absolute numbers, the U.S. deaths are about 43 times China’s and the case number is about 79 times higher.

The U.S. government, unlike the government in China, hesitated to properly craft a lockdown and test the population. That is why, in per capita terms, U.S. deaths are about 186 times higher than those in China and the cases are about 343 times higher.

Trump’s racist attempt to pin the blame on China is pure diversion. China contained the virus. The U.S. has totally failed to do so. The enormous number of U.S. deaths were ‘Made in Washington,’ not ‘Made in China.’

Measuring the Economy

In the first quarter of 2020, the Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 6.8 percent compared to a year earlier. Due to the fast elimination of domestic transmission of the virus, economic recovery in China has been rapid. By the second quarter, China’s GDP has been up 3.2 percent compared to the same period in 2019. The International Monetary Fund projects that China will be the only major economy to experience positive growth.

How did China’s economy rebound so fast? The answer is clear: the socialist character of the economy. By July, China’s state investmentwas 3.8 percent above its level of a year ago, while private investment is still 5.7 percent below 2019. China has used its powerful state sector to boost itself out of recession. This illustrates the macro-efficiency of the state sector.

In mid-August, the Communist Party of China’s theoretical journal Qiushi (Seeking Truth) published a speech by Xi Jinping, in which he said, “The foundation of China’s political economy can only be a Marxist political economy, and not be based on other economic theories.” The main principles of this are “people-centered development thinking.” This was the foundation of the government’s response to the pandemic and the economy in its context.

Trump, meanwhile, made it very clear that his administration would not conduct anything near a national lockdown; it seems his priority was to protect the economy over American lives. As early as March, when there was no sign that the pandemic could be controlled in the United States, Trump announced, “America will again and soon be open for business—very soon.”

Disaster in the United States

Inefficient policies in the United States resulted in runaway COVID-19 infection rates. The basic protocols—masks, hand sanitizer—were not taken seriously. And the impact on the U.S. economy has been catastrophic.

The U.S. made it clear that it was not going to pursue anything near a people-centered approach. Trump’s entire emphasis was to keep the economy open, largely because he remains of the view that his election victory will come via the pocketbook; the human cost of this policy is ignored. The U.S. only had half a lockdown, and little testing and contact tracing.

The GDP of the United States in the second quarter fell by 9.5 percent as compared to a year earlier. There is no indication of strong improvement. The IMF estimates that U.S. economic contraction will be about 6.6 percent for the year. The “risk ahead,” writes the IMF, “is that a large share of the U.S. population will have to contend with an important deterioration of living standards and significant economic hardship for several years to come.” The disruption will have long-term implications. These problems are laid out clearly by the IMF: “preventing the accumulation of human capital, eroding labor force participation, or contributing to social unrest.” This is the exact opposite of the scenario unfolding in China.

It is as if we live on two planets. On one planet, there is outrage about the hypocrisy in what Trump said to Woodward, and outrage about the collapse of both the health system and the economy—with a harsh road forward to rebuild either. On the other planet, the chain of infection has been broken, although the Chinese government remains vigilant and is willing to sacrifice short-term economic growth to save the lives of its citizenry.

Trump’s attack on China, his threats to decouple the United States from China, his racist noises about the “Chinese virus”—all this is bluster designed as part of an information war to delegitimize China. Xi Jinping, meanwhile, has focused on “dual circulation,” which means domestic measures to raise living standards and eliminate poverty, and on the Belt and Road Initiative; both of these will lessen Chinese dependence on the United States.

Two planets might begin to drift apart, one moving in the direction of the future, the other out of control.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest book is Washington Bullets, with an introduction by Evo Morales Ayma.

John Ross is a senior fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He was formerly director of economic policy for the mayor of London.

Controversial study claiming COVID-19 manufactured in Wuhan lab linked to former White House strategist

Yan Li-meng published paper under Rule of Law Foundation, funded by Chinese billionaire in exile

Posted on : Sep.18,2020 

Steve Bannon, former chief strategist in the White House, and billionaire Guo Wengui, a Chinese exile who lives in the US. (Guo’s Twitter account)

A controversial study claiming that the coronavirus was manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, turns out to be linked to Steve Bannon, a former senior strategist in the White House under US President Donald Trump. After a researcher from Hong Kong who is receiving assistance from Bannon claimed that the coronavirus was man-made, her social media accounts were either shut down or labeled with “fake news” warnings.

Yan Li-meng, a former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hong Kong, published a paper on Zenodo, an open-access repository of scholarship, on Sept. 14, stating that she had evidence to back up her claims about the coronavirus. The title page of the article in question includes the name of the Rule of Law Foundation, an organization in which Bannon is involved.

The Rule of Law Foundation was established in November 2018 with a US$100 million donation from billionaire Guo Wengui, an exile from China who lives in the US. The foundation is composed of two charitable organizations based in New York, one of which is called the Rule of Law Society. Bannon is the chairman of the Rule of Law Society, which also appears on the title page of Yan’s paper.

Guo Wengui, a real estate magnate, fled China in 2014 after one of his associates was arrested on corruption charges. Since reestablishing himself in New York, he has organized a campaign to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party. Bannon used to be the executive chairman of Breitbart, a far-right American news website that has trafficked in conspiracy theories. After serving in Donald Trump’s successful campaign for US president in 2016, Bannon was appointed as an advisor to Trump in the White House; he stepped down from that position in August 2017.

Since then, Bannon has built a connection with Guo Wengui by appearing in dozens of videos criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. Bannon was arrested last month on charges of defrauding donors in a fundraising campaign and was released on US$5 million bail. At the time of his arrest, Bannon was on a superyacht owned by Guo, off the coast of Connecticut.

Yan says virus was created by PLA’s biological weapons department

A former resident of Hong Kong, Yan relocated to the US in April and has been advancing her coronavirus claims since July. On July 28, she said in a video on Bannon’s YouTube channel that the coronavirus was created as part of biological weapons development by China’s military, which is called the People’s Liberation Army.

Yan repeated these claims during appearances on ITV in the UK and Fox News in the US this month, before releasing her paper on Sept. 14. Four other researchers were named in the paper, but no information was provided about their qualifications. The paper did not disclose what role was played in the research by the Rule of Law Foundation or the Rule of Law Society, in which Bannon is involved.

As of Sept. 17, Yan’s Twitter account (@limengyan119) was temporarily suspended. The account, created earlier this month, had displayed a picture of Yan’s face and the message, “Let’s talk about science,” but currently appears to be empty of content. A notification states that the account violated Twitter’s rules. Since May, Twitter has been labeling tweets that contain information determined to be fake news, but it’s rare for an entire account to be suspended for that reason.

Facebook has also been categorizing Yan’s claims as fake news. On Sept. 15, the Facebook account of Tucker Carlson Tonight, a leading Fox News talk show focusing on current affairs, posted a video in which Carlson interviews Yan about her coronavirus claims. Facebook labeled the video in question with the following message: “This post repeats information about COVID-19 that independent fact-checkers say is false.”

Facebook’s label includes links to three articles related to COVID-19 and the claims made in the interview. Two were by FactCheck.org, a website run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and one was by USA Today, a major media outlet. The articles in question verify that there’s no factual basis for claims that the coronavirus was manufactured at a lab in Wuhan or that the coronavirus was derived from HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Other scientists dispute Yan’s claims as false

The paper that Yan published on Zenodo is titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.” The paper argues that the coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2, is similar both to the SARS virus from 2003 and to a bat coronavirus discovered in a Chinese military laboratory.

“This pre-print report cannot be given any credibility in its current form,” said Andrew Preston, a researcher in the department of biology at the University of Bath.

Kristian Andersen, who published a paper in Nature demonstrating the natural origins of the coronavirus, said that Yan’s claims were factually wrong. Andersen said that SARS-CoV-2 and the bat coronavirus differ in more than 3,500 nucleic acid components.

Back in July, Yan said she’d discovered person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 early on in the outbreak, but that the University of Hong Kong had silenced her. The University retorted that Yan didn’t conduct any research about the coronavirus at the end of last year.

By Choi Hyun-june, staff reporter, and Jung E-gil, senior staff writer
@hani.co.kr]

Seoul court recognizes occupational disease of Samsung Electronics worker 16 years later

Semiconductor worker contracted Devic’s disease while handling dangerous chemicals

Posted on : Sep.16,2020 

Members of the watchdog group Banollim hold a press conference in front of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service to call for industrial accident recognition for employees of Samsung Electronics’ semiconductor division. (Park Jong-shik, staff photographer)

An employee of Samsung Electronics who contracted a rare disease while working at one of the company’s semiconductor factories finally received government confirmation of suffering from an occupational disease, nearly 16 years after leaving the company.

Hon. Son Seong-hui, a judge with the Seoul Administrative Court, ruled in favor of “A,” who had petitioned the court to force the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (KCOMWEL) to cover medical expenses. The employee contracted Devic’s disease, a disorder of the spine and eyes, while working at a Samsung semiconductor factory.

A came down with acute transverse myelitis in 2004, seven years after being hired at Samsung Electronics’ semiconductor factory in Giheung in 1997, and was ultimately diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica, also known as Devic’s disease. In this rare disease, inflammation of the spinal cord and optic nerves causes eyesight to deteriorate.

A, who was working on a three-shift rotation, was responsible for washing semiconductor wafers (the substrate of integrated circuits) in a tank of sulfuric acid and replacing the chemicals in the tank. A quit in 2005 and then asked KCOMWEL to recognize the medical condition as an occupational disease in 2017. But KCOMWEL refused on the grounds that A hadn’t established a causal relationship between the job and the medical condition.

In a lawsuit filed with the administrative court, A argued that his immune system had been weakened by his work on a rotating shift and continued exposure to harmful chemicals, which either caused or aggravated the disease. The court concluded that A’s argument couldn’t be denied, even if a definite causal relationship couldn’t be established.

“Considering that we’re becoming more aware of the problems with harmful chemicals and improving our management of work environments, the extent of A’s exposure to harmful chemicals during his time on the job was probably more severe than what has been found in related studies,” the court said

The court also ruled that A’s irregular sleeping schedule, caused by his rotating shifts and overtime, could conceivably have weakened his immunity, causing the disease or accelerating its progress.

“The purpose of the industrial accident compensation and insurance system is for industry and society as a whole to share this burden. In light of that purpose, the protocol for recognizing occupational diseases shouldn’t be stacked against workers, who already face the disadvantage of having to demonstrate [that their disease resulted from their work environment],” the court added.

“The court’s ruling suggests that various factors that could affect the incidence of disease ought to be taken into account when assessing causality, even for rare diseases, when there may be hardly any research into pathogenesis. This ruling is also a declaration that we need to rectify our current approach, which cruelly makes workers responsible for demonstrating [causality],” said Cho Seung-gyu, a full-time activist for Banollim, a watchdog group that advocates rights for semiconductor workers.

By Joh Yun-yeong, staff reporter hani.co.kr

[Photo] Civic groups call for punishing negligent corporate practices that result in worker deaths
Posted on : Sep.17,2020 


On Sept. 16, activists and civic groups gathered in Seoul’s Gwanghwamun Square to call for a revision in South Korean legislation for punishing companies where workers are seriously injured or die on the job due to irresponsible or negligent management. Following the high-profile death of Kim Yong-gyun, who was only 24 when he died during an accident at Taean Power Plant in South Chungcheong Province in December 2018, an increasing number of South Koreans are becoming aware of the frequency of industrial accidents that take people’s lives. (Baek So-ah, staff photographer)

related stories
· [Special report- Part VIII] The Samsung Brazil's labor union case
· [Special report- Part III] Curses, verbal abuse, and impossible quotas
· Samsung LCD worker receives industrial accident recognition 15 years after developin

 [Column] We can’t wait any longer to eliminate fossil fuels and convert to renewables   

Recent catastrophes indicate we’ve reached a critical point that requires immediate action

Posted on : Sep.13,2020

South Korean President Moon Jae-in finishes giving a speech at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit in New York on Sept. 23, 2019. (Yonhap News)

South Korea’s recent record-breaking monsoon season, a slew of powerful typhoons, and COVID-19 all point to the same thing — climate change has reached a critical stage where it can no longer be ignored. In order to defuse this crisis, we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases. We can’t wait any longer to eliminate fossil fuels and convert to 100% renewable energy if we’re to save not only the human race, but all creatures on the earth.

It’s not a question of whether to transition to renewable energy, but how fast we can do so. The countries of Europe are moving resolutely to speed up that transition. Germany has increased the share of renewable energy from 6.6% in 2000 to 52% this year. Only a decade ago, the UK relied on coal for 40% of its power, but it recently brought coal usage down to zero and boosted renewable energy to 37% of its energy mix. In the US, renewables and natural gas are jostling for first place among sources of power. Japan’s goal is to achieve 100% in renewable energy usage by 2050.

Compare that with South Korea, which aims to increase renewable energy from the current level of 7% to 20% in 2030. We’re still a decade away from reaching a goal that Western countries have already achieved. Nevertheless, conservative politicians and some media outlets indignantly accuse the Moon administration of overinvesting in solar energy and other renewables. They inevitably trot out objections about the technical limitations of renewable energy.

In reality, transitioning to 100% renewable energy is mostly a matter of will. 

The goal is completely achievable right now using the technology in our possession.

A plan for this tradition was offered by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, all the way back in 2009 in an article titled, “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables.”

In a paper printed in “Energy Policy,” the most authoritative journal in the field, Jacobson and Delucchi wrote that the developed world could convert most or all of its infrastructure to renewable energy in 20-40 years. Jacobson has stuck with this research topic, increasing the number of countries to 143. In regard to South Korea, he said that South Korea could switch to 100% renewables by 2050. That transition would reduce the number of deaths from atmospheric pollution by 9,000 a year and would create 1.4 million more jobs than would be lost.

While delivering an online lecture as part of a recent forum held by the Korean Climate Change Center, Jacobson said that various energy conversion devices he’d installed in his house, built in 2017, earned him US$700 a year from his state government. Solar panels on his roof produced 120% of the energy used on his house and electric car; instead of paying for his electricity and heating and gas at the pump, he could sell the power company whatever electricity he didn’t need. In addition to the solar panels, Jacobson also has an electric-powered heat pump and heater that transfer heat from inside and outside the house into a reservoir. He prepares food on an induction cooktop. “It’s just not true that natural gas, coal, and petroleum are necessary. That’s just a myth,” Jacobson said.

Ultimately, our will is the key element that makes this transition possible. There must be collective will, resolve, and determination. The only way to prevent the planet from plunging irrevocably into a boiling cauldron is for ordinary people to take the climate crisis seriously, pressuring policymakers to take action and the state to aggressively implement the Green New Deal to enable this energy transition.

This year, people around the world have worn masks in their everyday lives — not only in Seoul and New York, London and Berlin, but even in Pyongyang. Just one year ago, surely no one could have imagined that we’d be living through such an abnormal, even dystopian, situation. Long ago, we lost any hope that this bizarre crisis would just blow over. Each day is a struggle for small business owners whose livelihood depends upon the volume of foot traffic. But we know that they aren’t the only ones who will suffer, which makes it all the more frightening to contemplate the future. Is it possible for humanity to examine the cause of this situation and to muster the unflagging resolution that is required? Or will we helplessly trudge down the path to our own annihilation?

Sept. 7, next Monday, has been designated as Blue Sky Day (short for the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies), in accordance with a proposal that the South Korean government submitted to the UN. The idea originated with a participant in a citizens’ panel with Korea’s National Council on Climate and Air Quality, which was created to resolve the issue of fine dust, and the UN accepted South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s proposal to designate the day during a climate action summit at the UN last year. The holiday was named for the blue skies that Koreans so longed to see when the skies were choked with particulate matter in early 2019, at a time when no one could have guessed that we’d be battling with COVID-19 one year later. There’s no telling what other climate disasters await us a year from now, or two years from now. We all need to take interest and show some resolve.

By Park Ki-yong, head of the climate change team @hani.co.kr

SOUTH KOREA

Six reactors shut down due to salinity during recent typhoons

 9 YEARS AFTER FUKUSHIMA

• Investigators say issue was preventable and should have been foreseen

Posted on : Sep.11,2020 

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
•  
• 
  
•   
• 
  

Busan’s Kori-3 and Kor-4 reactors shut down amid Typhoon Maysak on Sept. 3. (Yonhap News)

The recent shutdown of six nuclear reactors at South Korea’s Kori and Wolsong nuclear power plants during the typhoons Maysak and Haishen resulted from the failure of power supply equipment, which was caused by salinity carried on the gale, according to an independent investigation by South Korea’s nuclear operator. This was an issue that should have been foreseen and forestalled at a coastal nuclear plant, which is likely to raise concerns about the safety of nuclear power.

Four nuclear reactors (Shin Kori-1, Shin Kori-2, Kori-3, and Kori-4) automatically shut down at night on Sept. 3 and early in the morning on Sept. 4 while Typhoon Maysak was overhead. Then on the morning of Sept. 7, two more nuclear reactors (Wolsong-2 and Wolsong-3) were brought to a halt because of Typhoon Haishen.

On Sept. 9, Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) provided the following explanation of the cause of the shutdown at these reactors. “The powerful winds and waves whipped up by the typhoon caused a large amount of salinity to enter the power supply equipment at the power plant. That in turn caused breakdowns, triggering breakers that are in place to protect the generating equipment.”

The KHNP’s explanation can be regarded as recognition that the design and operation of nuclear power plants are vulnerable to the extreme weather events that are brought by climate change. Considering that all of Korea’s nuclear plants are located near the coast, precautions should have been taken against salinity in the plants’ design and operation. A protracted suspension of the external power supply could cause a meltdown of the nuclear fuel rods, which is what happened during the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan.

The KHNP placed the blame on the typhoon, which turned out to be stronger than expected. “The facility was designed with insulation because of its coastal location, but the wind was so strong that foam from the waves reached the hills on the other side of the reactor. The exposed equipment was vulnerable,” a KHNP spokesperson said.

“Equipment outside of nuclear reactors uses waterproof parts as a precaution against rainwater or saltwater. Even if salinity is the cause, as the KHNP claimed, the real problem might be poor-quality parts and slapdash construction,” said Han Byeong-seop, director of the Institute for Nuclear Safety.

Shortly after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011, the South Korean government ordered the KHNP to implement 46 measures aimed at countering extreme natural disasters. The project was divided into phases that were supposed to be completed by 2015. But three of the measures remain incomplete: namely, installing watertight doors and waterproof pumps, installing exhaust or decompression equipment on the containment vessel, and improving anti-flooding measures in the main steam safety valve room and the emergency pump room.

By Kim Jeong-su, senior staff writer @hani.co.kr