ROSEN, GLOBALLY RESPECTED INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages Discovery Inc. Investors with Losses Exceeding $100K to Secure Counsel Before Important March 8 Deadline in Securities Class Action – DISCA, DISCK

NEW YORK, Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Discovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: DISCA, DISCK) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important March 8, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Discovery securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Discovery class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases–register–2239.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll–free at 866–767–3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 8, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Discovery shares during the Class Period while in possession of material non–public information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family office with $10 billion under management) and its need to fully liquidate its position in Discovery because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, the defendants in the case, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, avoided billions in losses combined.

To join the Discovery class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases–register–2239.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll–free at 866–767–3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the–rosen–law–firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

———————————————–

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686–1060
Toll Free: (866) 767–3653
Fax: (212) 202–3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


ROSEN, GLOBAL INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages Faraday Future Intelligent Electric, Inc. f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. Investors With Losses Exceeding $100K to Secure Counsel Before Important February 22 Deadline in Securities Class Action – FFIE, FFIEW, PSAC, PSACW, PSACU

NEW YORK, Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Faraday Future Intelligent Electric, Inc. f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: FFIE, FFIEW, PSAC, PSACW, PSACU) between January 28, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important February 22, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Faraday Future securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Faraday Future class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases–register–2206.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll–free at 866–767–3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Faraday Future had assets in China frozen by courts; (2) a significant percentage of Faraday Future's deposits for future deliveries were attributable to a single undisclosed affiliate; (3) Faraday Future's cars were not as close to production as the Company claimed; (4) as a result of previously issued statements that were misleading and/or inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly report; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Faraday Future's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Faraday Future class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases–register–2206.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll–free at 866–767–3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the–rosen–law–firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686–1060
Toll Free: (866) 767–3653
Fax: (212) 202–3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


Le Sommet Mondial 2022 Rassemble des Conférenciers et des Participants de 157 Pays

Washington, DC, Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — POUR DIFFUSION IMMDIATE

Sommet mondial pour tudier les moyens

de ramener la paix dans la pninsule corenne

La Fdration pour la paix universelle (FPU) et le gouvernement royal du Cambodge sont heureux d'annoncer la tenue du prochain Sommet mondial 2022 (Sommet pour la paix dans la pninsule corenne) Soul, en Core du Sud. Les confrenciers principaux et les participants de 157 pays s'adresseront la fois un public en personne et un public virtuel mondial sur les perspectives de rconciliation pacifique de la pninsule corenne.

Le Sommet mondial 2022 sera organis par le Dr Hak Ja Han Moon, cofondatrice de la FPU, et co–organis par Samdech Techo Hun Sen, Premier ministre du Royaume du Cambodge, et SE Ban Ki–moon, ancien secrtaire gnral du Les Nations unies.

Le Sommet, du 10 au 13 fvrier 2022 est intitul : Vers la paix dans la pninsule corenne . Des orateurs minents examineront de nombreux aspects de la rconciliation, commencer par des propositions de dialogue constructif et la recherche d'un consensus entre les acteurs majeurs autour de la question corenne.

D'autres sujets seront abords : projets de coentreprise entre les deux Cores susceptibles d'impliquer aussi la Chine, le Japon, la Russie et les tats–Unis ; projets touristiques en Core du Nord ; convertir la DMZ – qui, intacte depuis 1953, est redevenue un environnement naturel vierge – en monument la paix mondiale.

La guerre de Core a commenc il y a plus de 70 ans et s'est conclue par un armistice, et non par un trait de paix , a dclar le prsident de la FPU, le Dr Thomas G. Walsh. Et d'ajouter : La pninsule corenne a une culture et langue et une histoire plurimillnaire commune. Ne peut–on pas rsoudre ce conflit et chercher la runification pacifique de la pninsule ? Le Sommet tentera de rpondre ces questions .

Avec ce Sommet mondial 2022, la FPU poursuit une srie d'activits de consolidation de la paix sous le thme prosprit mutuelle, interdpendance valeurs universelles partages . La FPU, ONG dote du statut consultatif gnral auprs du Conseil conomique et social de l'ONU, est connue pour sa srie de Rassemblement de l'Espoir, ses confrences internationales des dirigeants et, depuis dbut 2021, son Forum Think Tank 2022. Ce dernier projet mobilise plus de 2 000 leaders d'opinion mondiaux en vue d'une perce pour la paix dans la pninsule corenne. (Des dtails sur les Think Tank 2022 sont disponibles sur UPF.org.)

Conformment aux directives de scurit de Covid–19, plus de 1000 personnes devraient se rassembler Soul pour le Sommet mondial 2022 lors des sances d'ouverture du vendredi 11 fvrier 2022. Des millions d'autres participeront via un format hybride de haute technologie.

Dans le cadre du Sommet mondial 2022, les associations de consolidation de la paix affilies la FPU tiendront plusieurs sessions de haut niveau :

Le Conseil international au sommet pour la paix (ICSP) et l'Association internationale des premires dames pour la paix (IAFP)

Association internationale des parlementaires pour la paix (IAPP)

Association interreligieuse pour la paix et le dveloppement (IAPD)

Association internationale pour la paix et le dveloppement conomique (IAED)

Association internationale des mdias pour la paix (IMAP)

Association internationale des universitaires pour la paix (IAAP)

Association internationale des arts et de la culture pour la paix (IAACP)

Pour les demandes des mdias, veuillez contacter :

William P. Selig | Directeur des communications, Universal Peace Federation

Tl. : 240–274–1744 | Courriel : wselig@upf.org | Web : www.upf.org

Attachment


now.gg launches now.gg Fungible Games (NFGs) the building blocks of Mobile Gaming Metaverse

PALO ALTO, Calif., Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — now.gg, the mobile cloud company, today announced its now.gg Fungible Games (NFG) platform for mobile games developed on Unity, Unreal, and Cocos engines. NFG enables the unbundling of the game so pieces of it can be owned by different people, its dynamic re–composition in the cloud, and delivery to the gamer. NFG also enables the games to be interlinked with each other by sharing the unbundled pieces across games.

"I am a big Marvel fan and awed by how they interlink the movies to create the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The Mobile Metaverse is inspired by Marvel. Games today are like movies, what if you could interlink them with Matter, Avatars, Space, and Time. Matter being things like weapons in a game, Avatars being the heroes, Space are things like maps with portals like Dr. Strange can make, and Time is the time of the gamer,” said Rosen Sharma, CEO and founder of now.gg. "This would be impossible to do today on a phone, but the processing power of the mobile cloud and the dynamic compositing of games makes this possible. We are very excited about this, and you will see more games plug into the Metaverse."

now.gg Fungible Games combines several unique technical capabilities to create a mobile Metaverse. The first is the ability to break down a game into game code, game events, and game art with different people owning different pieces of the game. The NFG platform can do this automatically for some existing games or enable developers to do this programmatically. The game can query, and augment or replace, any of these unbundled components with components from the user or the game's developer to create a fungible game, introducing an entirely new experience. The second is the real–time dynamic composition of these unbundled elements in the cloud streamed to the user with low latency. The third is the interlinking of the elements between games and the user's own wallets and journey.

With NFG, developers gain access to more ways to create and build and players get a much richer experience. NFG also introduces new levels of interaction between gamers, game developers, and gaming creators. The simplest use case of this is that users can find and use NFTs in the game and create an entirely personalized game experience by collecting NFT or non–NFT based 2D and 3D images, textures, videos, and code. The NFG platform can query a user's wallet so anyone can incorporate their NFTs or other assets into a game. Opening up these assets to share across users and games unlocks the Metaverse for developers and creators, who can now let fans use their assets within their games.

Heya (meaning room in Japanese), a mobile simulation game, is the first example of NFG. Here the game can query a user's wallet to see what assets they have, and then allow the user to place these assets on the walls in their room, creating a shared and completely personalized digital space. Also in the future, it will create portals enabling the users to jump into other games via some of these NFTs.

"NFG is a mind–blowing new platform. It will transform how games are developed in the future and how games interact with their player," said Yang GUO, Founder and CEO, Heya Game. "It also gives existing mobile developers a path to Web 3.0 building on top of the existing business. This would not have been possible without the mobile cloud."

NFG is available now. For more information, please visit now.gg/nfg.html

About now.gg:
now.gg is the mobile cloud company changing the gaming experience for game developers and consumers. With the first global mobile platform–as–a–service for game developers, now.gg enables gaming communities to play games on any device or OS, share games instantly on their social channels and pay in–game through payment channels they already have. No longer constrained by geography, device or attribution, now.gg opens the world of consumers to game developers and unlocks entirely new revenue streams.


Cloud Database Demand Spurs 198% Growth for ScyllaDB

PALO ALTO, Calif., Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ScyllaDB, the database for data–intensive apps that require high performance and low latency, today announced that the company achieved 106% overall year–over–year growth in net new ARR. The majority of this growth came from Scylla Cloud, the company's Database–as–a–Service (DBaaS), which grew 198% over 2021.

The impressive 2021 results were a direct response to the growing number of game–changing organizations challenged with scaling for rapid data growth. The ScyllaDB database "" which is available in open source, enterprise, and cloud options "" features deep architectural advancements that enable consistently high performance at extreme scale and efficiency. It is increasingly the database of choice for hard–core engineers who have experienced the constraints of the first generation of NoSQL databases (e.g. Apache Cassandra, MongoDB) and require a fundamentally different approach to powering their applications.

Notable 2021 milestones include:

  • Welcoming industry leaders across social media, food delivery, travel planning, exercise tracking, telecom, adtech, and cybersecurity as new customers
  • Launching Scylla Cloud on GCP in addition to AWS
  • Offering Scylla Cloud and Scylla Enterprise on AWS Marketplace
  • Introducing the industry's first fully–managed NoSQL DBaaS that runs in the customer's own cloud account (BYOA)
  • Achieving record enrollment and engagement in Scylla University, which achieved a 165% increase in certifications year–over–year
  • Completing extensive benchmarking vs CockroachDB and Apache Cassandra 4.0
  • Recognizing the accomplishments of users such as Zillow, GE Healthcare, Disney+ Hotstar, and Fanatics with ScyllaDB User Awards
  • Launching P99CONF, a highly–interactive virtual conference that attracted 5K developers obsessed with P99 percentiles and high–performance, low–latency applications

"One interesting business impact of COVID is the dramatic increase in the demand to build and accelerate data–intensive applications," explained ScyllaDB CEO and co–founder Dor Laor. "As the expectations for online services surged across B2B as well as B2C, the need for organizations to become digitally efficient increased significantly. This drove major growth across all our products. For our organization, one of the most notable impacts of 2021 was increased demand from industry disruptors: organizations leveraging data to change the game (for example, Discord, Disney+ Hotstar, Expedia, FireEye, and Zillow). They select ScyllaDB because of our ability to deliver consistent high performance with ultra–low latency."

Scylla Summit 2022
Scylla Summit 2022 will be unveiling more details about the company's progress as well as a broad array of expert perspectives on what's ahead in this next tech cycle (cloud infrastructure, distributed databases, event streaming, and more). The conference, which occurs on February 9 and 10, is virtual, free, and highly interactive. In addition to ScyllaDB leaders and engineers, it features speakers from:

  • AWS
  • Oxide Computer Company
  • Palo Alto Networks
  • Amdocs
  • Rakuten
  • IOTA
  • Confluent

Register at https://www.scylladb.com/scylla–summit–2022/ to attend live or to unlock full access to the on–demand session recordings plus the speakers' slide decks.

About ScyllaDB

ScyllaDB is the database for data–intensive apps that require high performance and low latency. It enables teams to harness the ever–increasing computing power of modern infrastructures "" eliminating barriers to scale as data grows. Unlike any other database, ScyllaDB is built with deep architectural advancements that enable exceptional end–user experiences at radically lower costs. Over 400 game–changing companies like Disney+ Hotstar, Expedia, FireEye, Discord, Crypto.com, Zillow, Starbucks, Comcast, and Samsung use ScyllaDB for their toughest database challenges. ScyllaDB is available as free open source software, a fully–supported enterprise product, and a fully managed service on multiple cloud providers. For more information: For more information: ScyllaDB.com

Media Contact:

Wayne Ariola

wayne.ariola@scylladb.com


WHR Group, Inc. Offering Free Employee Relocation Policy Reviews

MILWAUKEE, Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — WHR Group, Inc. (WHR), a leader in the global employee relocation industry, is offering companies free relocation policy reviews. WHR will also help companies create new policies from scratch. Even with the Covid pandemic, companies are still relocating employees to fill crucial roles. Reviewing relocation policies and making critical adjustments helps organizations win in the war for talent, meet employees' needs, benchmark against the competition and control business costs.

Relocation policies should be incorporated into an organization's total rewards and talent management strategies. The right relocation policy can help a company, while a weak policy "" or none at all "" could have a negative impact on the candidate recruiting success rate. "With the current war for talent, it's critical to have a structured and competitive relocation program. This helps companies attract and retain top talent," says WHR's Business Development Regional Manager, Ben Koceja. Making sure a relocation policy meets transferees' needs helps reduce transferee stress so that employees can focus on work roles in their new locations.

Benchmarking a policy against other companies also helps organizations stay competitive in the war for talent. The policy needs to include a choice of offerings since relocation policies are wrapped into job offers. Companies also need to ensure they're allocating the right amount of dollars to transferees and organizational needs. It is important organizations are not paying for unnecessary or outdated benefits.

According to WHR's International Business Development Manager, Linden Houghtby, MBA, GMS, MIM+, "Having a relocation policy aligned with your company culture, talent strategy, and recruiting goals is essential to having a successful relocation/mobility program. It allows companies to move employees where they are needed most. Policies ensure transferees will be taken care of in a way that reflects the organization's values and goals."

To learn more about WHR's free employee relocation policy reviews or for help creating a new policy, contact WHR.

About WHR Group, Inc.
WHR is a private, woman–owned, global employee relocation management company distinguished by its white glove service delivery structure and proprietary technology. WHR has offices in Wisconsin, Switzerland, and Singapore. With its 100% client retention rate for the past decade, WHR continues to be the trusted leader in global employee relocation.
https://www.whrg.com, LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

Media Contact: Mindy Stroiman, Corporate Writer
Mindy.Stroiman@whrg.com
262–523–7510


Our Global Food Systems Are Rife with Injustice: Here’s How We Can Change This

Food systems can disenfranchise marginalised and vulnerable communities worldwide. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Food systems can disenfranchise marginalised and vulnerable communities worldwide. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By External Source
Jan 25 2022 – The pandemic – alongside growing threats from climate change, widespread malnutrition, economic instability and geopolitical conflict – has heightened problems with the ways we produce, distribute and consume food. And it’s made clear the urgent need to make global food systems more just.

An example of modern food injustice is that if you’re poor or an ethnic minority in the US, you’re less likely to have easy access to healthy food. This situation, worsened by COVID-19, has been termed food apartheid. It’s also often the case that corporations, not local growers, control the food produced by communities: taking money out of their hands.

If this is to change, it’s important to understand who wins within existing food systems and, more importantly, who loses by being pushed to the sidelines and losing out on access to healthy food.

To do this, those who design food systems need to consider how different factors that determine if someone is marginalised – like gender, age, disability, ethnicity and religion – can combine or intersect, making some people more vulnerable.

For example, international development programmes by governments and charities often focus on helping women because they are considered vulnerable. But this risks overlooking different causes of poverty including class and race issues, marginalising other vulnerable groups.

In Tanzania, this kind of oversimplification when deciding who receives resources has been found to reinforce existing power hierarchies within communities, meaning that those who had little social power to begin with – such as poorer women – don’t get to benefit from the resources provided.

 

The pandemic – alongside growing threats from climate change, widespread malnutrition, economic instability and geopolitical conflict – has heightened problems with the ways we produce, distribute and consume food. And it’s made clear the urgent need to make global food systems more just.

Including people in the processes designed to help them is vital to ensure systems are improved. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

 

In contrast, research shows that development projects tend to do better when they take local community norms into account. For example, in Bangladesh, men and women from Hindu and Muslim communities work in wetlands, but each group plays a different role. Researchers found that community wetland management projects did better when people worked in accordance with their traditional roles according to both gender and religion.

Decolonising research can also encourage us to identify and challenge power, privilege and inequality in research. For example, it’s usually scholars from developed countries, rather than their counterparts in developing countries, who set research agendas and determine how money is spent

An intersectional approach helps us to move beyond simplistic categories like the “vulnerable woman”, instead drawing attention to the unequal flows of power that shape access to resources. This should be embedded at the deepest level within food science to ensure marginalised and vulnerable people are at the forefront of change.

 

Power dynamics

It’s also vital to understand how power dynamics structure decisions within food systems, whether that’s within households or inside government institutions.

When tackling issues faced by women and girls in Burundi, CARE International worked with a network of local male gender equality champions to analyse power systems, reflect on gender roles and encourage equal, active participation by women in community decisions. Outcomes included improvements in agricultural productivity as well as increasing women’s empowerment and gender equality.

Creating inclusive, safe spaces for marginalised voices is also critical. Creative approaches, such as theatre, dance and music, provide a powerful medium through which to achieve this.

For example, Roktim: Nurture Incarnadine, an Ananya Dance Theatre
production, explores feminist food politics through dance. Their performance highlights issues around sustainability and justice in food systems, and demonstrates the power of community action.

 

Injustice

Historical injustice has a large part to play in the ongoing failure of food systems. For example, when it comes to global food systems, we need to understand how colonialism has shaped food processes and how it continues to do so today.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the colonial government in Zambia promoted maize production over that of indigenous crops like millet and sorghum. Nowadays, maize production continues to receive substantial support, with almost 80% of the government’s annual agricultural budget spent on producing maize. Consequently, maize – which provides limited nutrients – dominates the Zambian diet, contributing to chronic food insecurity in the region.

Understanding how to better design food systems requires researchers to take into account how colonisation helped shape them in the first place. This allows us to acknowledge how colonial processes of exploitation and destruction, such as the transatlantic slave trade, are reflected in modern maize-dominated food systems across Africa.

Decolonising research can also encourage us to identify and challenge power, privilege and inequality in research. For example, it’s usually scholars from developed countries, rather than their counterparts in developing countries, who set research agendas and determine how money is spent.

And research from across the world is frequently only published in English, limiting the accessibility of that information within communities where English isn’t spoken.

Traditionally, science has seen itself as a process of impartial observation. Yet all research reflects cultural biases, and as researchers we are profoundly influenced by our own values. Becoming aware of how our scientific knowledge is created is a key step in achieving justice.

From the co-development of agricultural technologies to the design and launch of food programmes, researchers have a huge impact on what kind of science gets prioritised – and who benefits from it.The Conversation

Harriet Elizabeth Smith, Research Fellow in Climate Risk, University of Leeds; Ruth Smith, PhD Researcher in Agriculture, University of Leeds, and Todd Rosenstock, Senior Scientist, Agriculture and the Environment, World Agroforestry (ICRAF)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kevin Shelly Named Strategic Account Manager – Americas’ for Nikkiso ACD

TEMECULA, Calif., Jan. 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Nikkiso Cryogenic Industries' Clean Energy & Industrial Gases Group (Group), a subsidiary of Nikkiso Co., Ltd (Japan), is pleased to announce that Kevin Shelly has accepted a new position as Strategic Account Manager for the Nikkiso Cryogenic Pumps Unit "" Americas.

This new and vital position to the management team supports the Group's objectives to further grow their presence and impact within the Industrial Gas market throughout North and South America.

Kevin has an impressive track record in sales development, customer relations, and key account and territory management within his 20–plus years of industry experience. His focus will be to sell prime equipment as well as service and aftermarket for the pump group. Kevin will also play a vital role in the Group's strategy by facilitating opportunities for the Nikkiso group companies and paving the way to becoming a stronger strategic partner for our customers.

"The Pumps Unit is excited to have Kevin in this new strategic management role," according to Daryl Lamy, President and CEO of the Group's Pump Unit. "His years of experience will add to our ability to offer world–class cryogenic pump products, customer service and value–added solutions for our customers."

Nikkiso Cryogenic Pumps Unit which includes Nikkiso ACD and Nikkiso Cryo is a leading manufacturer of a diverse line of cryogenic pumps "" large to small.

ABOUT CRYOGENIC INDUSTRIES
Cryogenic Industries, Inc. (now a member of Nikkiso Co., Ltd.) member companies manufacture engineered cryogenic gas processing equipment and small–scale process plants for the liquefied natural gas (LNG), well services and industrial gas industries. Founded over 50 years ago, Cryogenic Industries is the parent company of ACD, Cosmodyne and Cryoquip and a commonly controlled group of approximately 20 operating entities.

For more information please visit www.nikkisoCEIG.com and www.nikkiso.com.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Anna Quigley
+1.951.383.3314
aquigley@cryoind.com


The Rise of Religious Extremism & Anti-Muslim Politics in Sri Lanka

Muslims at a mosque in Sri Lanka. Credit: Financial Times, Sri Lanka

By Alan Keenan
BRUSSELS, Jan 25 2022 – On 28 October, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed the militant Buddhist monk Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara to head a presidential task force on legal reforms, shocking many in Sri Lanka and beyond. Gnanasara is the public face of the country’s leading anti-Muslim campaign group, Bodu Bala Sena (Army of Buddhist Power, or BBS). He is widely accused of inciting inter-communal violence, including two deadly anti-Muslim pogroms in June 2014 and March 2018.

Convicted of contempt of court for a separate incident, Gnanasara was sentenced to six years in prison but received a presidential pardon from Rajapaksa’s predecessor, Maithripala Sirisena, in his final months in office. The act of clemency came after intensive lobbying by nationalist monks and an upsurge of anti-Muslim sentiment in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter bombings, a series of attacks on churches and tourist hotels carried out by a small group claiming allegiance to the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Observers across the Sri Lankan political spectrum, including some Buddhist nationalists, expressed dismay – at times, outrage – that the president could name someone whose disrespect for the law and hostility to non-Sinhala Buddhist minorities are a matter of public record to head a commission ostensibly designed to prevent “discrimination” and ensure “humanitarian values”. Critics have called the appointment “irrational” and even “incomprehensible”.

In fact, it is anything but. The Rajapaksa government is deeply unpopular, including among large sections of its core Sinhala Buddhist constituency, and desperate to divert public attention from its economic mismanagement.

There is thus a clear if deeply unfortunate logic for it to bring back to the fore the best-known proponent of a theme that was key to getting the president elected: fear of Muslims as a source of “religious extremism”.

While it was in one sense surprising to see the open affirmation of Rajapaksa’s active support for the controversial monk after many years of distancing himself from Gnanasara, tight links between Sri Lankan government officials and the Buddhist clergy are nothing new. The 1978 constitution gives Buddhism the “foremost place” in the country’s religious landscape and the state the duty to “protect” it.

There is nothing comforting in this history, however. The Sinhala Buddhist majoritarian nature of the Sri Lankan state – ie, the extent to which the state represents and enforces majority interests at the expense of the rights of other communities – has had disastrous effects on the country’s ethnic and religious minorities.

The state’s transition from being structurally discriminatory to openly hostile toward Tamils (who are Hindu or Christian) – a process fed by Sinhala politicians’ warnings about the threat the community allegedly posed – ultimately led to three decades of devastating civil war.

During that period, from 1983 to 2009, terrorist attacks by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam provided some objective grounds for Sinhalese fears, reinforcing the narrative that the majority community was under threat. Now, there is growing reason to fear that this pattern may be repeating itself in the Sri Lankan state’s interactions with its Muslim citizens.

Credit: Sunday Times, Sri Lanka

The Rise of Anti-Muslim Politics

In November 2019, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successful campaign for Sri Lanka’s presidency made much of the slogan “one country, one law”, which had gained popularity after the 2019 Easter bombings. Its ambiguity was useful: at one level, it could be interpreted as merely asking for uniform treatment of all citizens and resonated with voters angry at the impunity with which politicians and their powerful supporters are able to violate the law.

But its discriminatory implication was also obvious from the start, hinting at a need to “protect” the Buddhist nature of state and society by eliminating the separate rules and treatment that many Sinhalese believe Muslims use to gain economic and political advantages.

Many Sinhalese have for years held the view that Sri Lankan Muslims are more concerned with advancing their own interests than working for the larger national interest. Even during the civil war, when Muslims remained overwhelmingly loyal to the state and played a critical role in fighting the Tamil insurgency, one regularly heard complaints in Sinhalese (as well as Tamil) circles that they were exploiting the conflict for personal and collective economic benefit.

Because Muslim lawmakers held the balance of power in parliament between the two major Sinhala-dominated parties, they were commonly accused of using their “kingmaker” role to gain undue advantages for their co-religionists.

By the early 2000s, many Sinhalese had also begun to express discomfort at the increasing numbers of Muslims, especially women, wearing religious attire and the growing focus among Muslims on practices meant to demonstrate religious piety. Many interpreted this trend as Muslims deliberately distancing themselves from the majority.

With the arrival of BBS ultra-nationalists on the political scene in late 2012 – whose message was amplified by the smaller militant Sinhalese groups Sinhala Ravaya and Ravana Balakaya – the public portrayal of Sri Lankan Muslims rapidly took on more overtly hostile forms. (The decade earlier had seen organised Buddhist activism, at times violent, directed against the growing number of evangelical churches; pressure on Christian evangelicals continues today, though not on the scale of anti-Muslim campaigns.)

At the height of its influence, in 2013 and 2014, BBS dominated news coverage and helped set the political agenda through rallies, speeches and vigilante actions aimed at containing the threat Muslims’ alleged “extremism” posed to Sri Lanka’s Sinhala Buddhist character. The range of allegations promoted by BBS and like-minded organisations, often through online hate speech, was broad and shifting.

They claimed that population growth meant that Muslims would eventually overtake the Sinhalese majority; that Muslim-owned businesses were secretly distributing products to sterilise Sinhalese in order to keep their numbers down; and that the system of halal food labelling was encroaching on the religious rights of others and covertly funding Islamist militants.

More generally, conservative religious practices adopted by increasing numbers of Muslims in a quest for greater piety were read by ultra-nationalists as evidence of growing “extremism” that threatened other communities. These charges were based on either outright falsehoods or malicious misinterpretations of complex social and religious developments among Sri Lankan Muslims.

The anti-Muslim rhetoric helped set off inter-communal violence late in the presidency of Gotabaya’s brother Mahinda Rajapaksa (2005-2015). These years saw a series of attacks on Muslim-owned businesses (with many alleging that Sinhala business rivals were backing the attackers) and disruption of political meetings held by anyone daring to challenge the Buddhist militants, against the backdrop of mass rallies denouncing the alleged threat posed by Muslims’ “extremism”.

In a June 2014 speech in the town of Aluthgama, Gnanasara declared to a large crowd: “This country still has a Sinhala police. A Sinhala army. If a single Sinhalese is touched, that will be the end of them all [Muslims]”. Minutes later, hundreds of his supporters marched through a nearby Muslim neighbourhood, sparking two days of devastation that left three Muslims and one Tamil security guard dead. Sinhala rioters, many of them brought in from outside the area, targeted mosques and Muslim-owned shops and homes for arson and destruction. The police were widely accused of standing by or even assisting the rioters.

Despite government denials, many independent observers told Crisis Group at the time that the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration was actively supporting the BBS and other anti-Muslim campaigns. They suspected the government of executing an electoral strategy designed to consolidate the Sinhala vote behind the government, which projected itself as the defender of Sinhalese Buddhist identity. The appearance of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, then defence secretary, at a BBS event in March 2013, and his known connections with senior monks associated with the group, fuelled the speculation.

More tangible evidence of state backing lay in the fact that police gave BBS and like-minded groups permission to hold rallies at a time when government critics were not allowed to do so. Police took no apparent action, moreover, to prevent or investigate repeated vigilante raids on Muslim-owned shops or violent efforts to silence critics of militant Buddhist organisations.

Nor was anyone prosecuted for any of these crimes. Multiple sources told Crisis Group that Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police Anura Senanayake, who worked closely with Gotabaya at the time, led efforts to persuade victims not to press charges. Following Mahinda’s defeat in the January 2015 election, officials announced they had evidence of close ties between Buddhist militants and military intelligence units, confirming what Muslim community leaders had previously told Crisis Group.

With the 2015 election of President Maithripala Sirisena, representing a united opposition determined to end the Rajapaksas’ rule, the strategy of demonising Muslims for electoral ends seemed to have failed. Sirisena’s yahapaalanaya (good governance) coalition won in part through strong Muslim and Tamil backing based on its promises to end the BBS-led reign of terror.

But while the new administration stopped tacitly encouraging anti-Muslim violence and hate speech, it lacked the political courage – and possibly the necessary support within the police and intelligence agencies – to crack down on Buddhist militant groups.

After a brief lull in anti-Muslim activism, 2016 and 2017 saw a series of small attacks on Muslim businesses by unknown assailants, encouraged by sustained hate speech campaigns in traditional and social media, backed by effective local networks.

In February 2018, Buddhist militants in Ampara damaged a mosque and Muslim-owned shops as the police looked on, following social media rumours that a Muslim-owned restaurant had injected sterilising chemicals into Sinhala customers’ food. The following month, four days of anti-Muslim rioting shook the central hill district of Kandy, sparked by the death of a Sinhala man assaulted weeks earlier by four Muslim men.

Gnanasara visited the victim’s family and later joined other militant leaders to address a crowd of protesters just hours before the riots began. Videos later appeared to show local politicians from the Rajapaksa family’s party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, taking part in the mayhem. Two people were killed, many injured, hundreds of Muslim-owned houses and shops destroyed, and at least a dozen mosques damaged. The violence was severe enough for President Sirisena to declare a state of emergency, during which the army eventually brought things under control.

President Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and senior ministers all condemned the violence and promised tough action in response. But despite hundreds of arrests, including of several prominent Buddhist activists, no one was held accountable for these incidents, which included well-documented attacks on Muslims by security forces, with eyewitnesses telling Crisis Group of numerous cases of complicity between the police and Buddhist rioters.

In August 2018, courts eventually convicted Gnanasara of contempt of court and criminal intimidation of a prominent Sinhala human rights activist. Many hailed his six-year sentence as a landmark, though Gnanasara has faced no jail time for attacks on or other actions against Muslims, and most of the slow-moving criminal cases against him in lower courts have now been dropped.

The partial victory over impunity was, however, short-lived. In 2019, in the aftermath of the horrific Easter Sunday suicide attacks, the Sri Lankan state for the first time adopted policies that directly discriminated against the Muslim minority. With tensions running high, President Sirisena’s government used the post-bombing state of emergency to prohibit the niqab, or full face covering, invoking national security concerns (the ban was rescinded in August 2019 when the emergency was lifted).

It also enacted new rules for government employees that, in effect, barred the full-length abaya, worn by many Muslim women teachers, especially in the Eastern Province (these were later withdrawn after being challenged by Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission). Anxious to salvage his sinking political fortunes as the November 2019 presidential election drew near, Sirisena then pardoned Gnanasara.

The nationalist monk immediately leapt into the political fray, joining his peers in protests demanding the resignation of Muslim ministers Rishad Bathiudeen and Azath Salley, accusing them – to date without convincing evidence – of involvement in the Easter attacks.

For many Sinhalese, especially Christians, as well as some Tamils, the Easter attacks seemed to confirm earlier warnings of a growing threat from “Islamic extremism”. Authorities responded to these fears in the attacks’ aftermath with what appeared to be the criminalisation of Muslims’ everyday practices.

Police arrested more than two thousand Muslims under emergency and terrorism laws, in all but a few cases with no evidence of links to the bombings or any threatening behaviour; they picked up many merely for having a Quran or other religious materials in Arabic script at home.

After the Easter bombings, the previously failed electoral strategy of shoring up Sinhala support through vilification of Muslims gained new traction. Gotabaya announced his candidacy just days after the attacks, promising to eradicate new forms of religiously motivated terrorism just as he had previously destroyed the Tamil Tigers when he was defence secretary.

At the polls, Gotabaya received overwhelming support from Sinhala voters, including many Catholics who had not previously backed him. The new president himself seemed to acknowledge the strategy’s success, declaring in his inaugural speech given in front of a Buddhist shrine: “I knew that I could win with only the votes of the Sinhala majority”.

Growing Tensions

Within months of taking office, Gotabaya deepened the state’s hostility toward Muslims on several fronts. His administration used COVID-19 lockdowns and ad hoc village-level quarantines to harass the community, which pro-government media outlets accused of spreading the virus. More damaging was the government’s decision on 1 April 2020 to ban burial of anyone even suspected of having died of the disease.

Announced the day after the first Muslim victim died, the decision was justified by a claim – quickly rejected by the World Health Organisation and Sri Lankan experts – that the virus could spread from interred remains through the groundwater. The policy, which stayed in place for nearly a year, had a profoundly cruel effect on Muslim families, who were forced to cremate their loved ones’ bodies against their religious convictions.

It was rescinded on 26 February, after a global advocacy campaign that sought to mobilise the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and member states of the UN Human Rights Council, which was due to assess Sri Lanka’s human rights record weeks later. Even after the ban was lifted, however, Sri Lanka has allowed burials in only one remote location, heavily guarded by the military – a limitation that continues to impose hardships on Muslims, as well as the smaller number of Christians and Hindus who choose to bury their dead.

On 12 March, the government also announced new regulations for “deradicalisation” of those “holding violent extremist religious ideology”. Issued under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, the rules allowed the defence ministry to detain anyone accused of causing “acts of violence or religious, racial or communal disharmony or feelings of ill will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups” for up to eighteen months, without any judicial process or oversight.

Human rights lawyers and Muslim leaders quickly filed suit in the Supreme Court, which in August put the measures on hold until it decides the case. Even if the court quashes the regulations, however, the government’s clear intention to establish a “deradicalisation” program leads some to believe it may enshrine similar powers in revisions to the counter-terrorism law it is presently preparing.

The regulations were issued without evidence that any significant number of Muslims in Sri Lanka posed a threat to security or would benefit from a program along the contemplated lines. They did, however, offer the government a face-saving way to release some of the hundreds of Muslims arrested after the Easter attacks who are still detained, in some cases without charge, by putting them into a “deradicalisation program”.

Holding large numbers of Muslims in special camps for another year or more, as the proposed deradicalisation program would do, however, would risk contributing to a collective sense of humiliation and anger that could itself push some toward “violent extremist religious ideology”. As Muslim activists regularly warn, the risk is particularly high as long as the government’s approach leaves no room for the possibility that Buddhists could promote their own forms of violent extremism.

Overlapping enquiries into the Easter bombings have, meanwhile, been politicised in ways that appear aimed at keeping alive fears of Muslims as a source of insecurity. As part of its broader attack on the independence of police and courts, Gotabaya’s government replaced the entire team looking into the bombings soon after coming to power, arrested the chief investigator, Shani Abeysekera, on what appear to be trumped-up charges, and demoted other officers. Another key investigator fled the country fearing arrest.

The administration has also refused to act on the key recommendations of a separate commission of enquiry – appointed by President Sirisena – into the bombings. These included, among others, prosecuting Sirisena, who is now a key government ally, and banning BBS, whose anti-Muslim incitement the commission found had contributed to the bombers’ turn to violence in a process of “reciprocal radicalisation”.

In what seems to be an attempt at maligning Muslim leaders, the Gotabaya administration also detained or charged a number of prominent Muslim personalities, seemingly without credible grounds. Ex-minister Bathiudeen faces terrorism and extremism charges – despite having been cleared of links to the Easter bombings by the presidential commission of enquiry.

On 2 December, a court released another Muslim lawmaker, Salley, after he had spent eight months in jail, citing lack of evidence. The prosecution of human rights lawyer and political activist Hejaaz Hizbullah for his supposed links to the Easter terrorist attacks also appears to be groundless, relying in part on coerced testimonies.

The government’s approach has angered Sri Lanka’s Catholic leadership, which has accused it, and the president himself, of covering up the “masterminds” behind the Easter bombings. Church leaders suggest that the government has been protecting Sirisena and refusing to follow up on evidence uncovered by the presidential commission that implies military intelligence officers had contact with some of the bombers before and on the day of the attack.

Backed by Pope Francis, Colombo’s archbishop Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has called for an international investigation. Following an October online meeting that aired church criticisms, the police summoned one of the cardinal’s top advisers for three days of questioning.

A Dangerous Slogan

Stung by growing criticism of its handling of the Easter bombings investigation, and facing a grave economic crisis that has badly damaged its popular support, including among Sinhala Buddhists, the Rajapaksa government signalled with Gnanasara’s appointment that it is returning to the “one country, one law” agenda that helped get it elected.

Given the concept’s vagueness, however, and the deep contradiction between it and the explicit privileges that Buddhism enjoys under the constitution, no one is sure what Gnanasara’s task force will actually do. While it can, in principle, look into the practices of all religious and ethnic groups, few observers doubt that it will focus its attention on the Muslim minority.

It is expected to consider reforms to the madrasa education system – Muslim leaders have submitted proposals to the government – as well as government plans to regulate activities in mosques, monitor the import and translation of the Quran and other Arabic texts, ban the niqab and burqa, and outlaw cattle slaughter (an industry dominated by Muslims and often criticised by Buddhist activists).

Gnanasara’s task force also seems certain to weigh in on long-discussed changes to the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act, a new version of which the cabinet approved in August. Over the past years, Muslims and others have bitterly debated possible reforms to the Act, with complicated overlap between human rights and feminist critiques of the legislation as patriarchal and oppressive and Buddhist nationalist criticisms of Muslims having their own marriage and family law.

Sri Lankan law enshrines distinct traditions of family law for Sinhalese in Kandy and Tamils in Jaffna, as well as for Muslims, but this Act has come in for particular criticism on account of allowing polygamy, setting no minimum age for marriage, requiring no explicit consent from the bride and establishing all-male courts to hear divorce cases.

But Gnanasara’s involvement in government efforts to alter it will likely weaken the leverage of Muslim feminist reformers pushing to strengthen women’s marriage and divorce rights and strengthen resistance to change from the all-male communal leadership, which has argued that feminist criticisms of the law, in effect, endorse Buddhist militant portrayals of Islam as a backward religion.

It remains to be seen, however, how far the government will allow or encourage Gnanasara to go. On the one hand, Buddhist nationalists appear to see “one country, one law” as a call for “a single law” that gives pre-eminence to Buddhist institutions while denying those of other religions official recognition.

Some top officials clearly see things the same way: it was particularly revealing that Gnanasara’s appointment was followed three weeks later by a series of large-scale Buddhist religious ceremonies in the sacred city of Anuradhapura, featuring the president, cabinet and top military brass alongside the Mahanayakes, Sri Lanka’s most powerful Buddhist clerics.

The two days of ceremonies were grand displays of the government’s project of more fully integrating state, military and Buddhist clergy on the basis of an overtly Sinhala nationalist political vision. On the other hand, in a December meeting, Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris assured ambassadors from Muslim countries that Sri Lanka would “continue to retain” “personal laws specific to Muslim, Kandyan and Tamil communities”.

Moreover, to date, Colombo has carefully calibrated its anti-Muslim policies so as to keep the backing of its hardline Buddhist nationalist supporters and win a degree of international support for helping “counter violent extremism”, while maintaining good relations with economic and political allies in the Muslim world.

The government may as yet have no precise agenda for the task force, but given Gnanasara’s charisma and theatrical skills, he is a potentially powerful, and dangerous, asset for reframing political debate, deepening divisions between Tamils and Muslims and possibly even provoking a new round of anti-Muslim unrest. He has been central in propagating Buddhist nationalist ideology over the last decade.

There is little that those outside of Sri Lanka, concerned about the rule of law, religious harmony and political stability, can do directly to address these dynamics. Foreign partners of the Sri Lankan state, can, however, be more careful about not inadvertently strengthening them.

Following the Easter bombings, a range of new programming by foreign donors has focused on counter-terrorism, preventing “violent extremism” and building “social cohesion”. In the words of one activist, though, “There is a lot of foreign funding to the government for ‘countering violent extremism’ but it only targets one faith. … No one dares tell the government to ‘rehabilitate’ Gnanasara or other extremist monks”.

Until such programming finds – or creates – the space to name and challenge the violent history, rhetoric and exclusionary political projects of all communities, it is more likely to perpetuate, rather than resist, the anti-Muslim ideology that today poses the greatest risk of destabilising violence in a country that has yet to recover from decades of brutal civil war.

The link to the original article: “One Country, One Law”: The Sri Lankan State’s Hostility toward Muslims Grows Deeper.

Alan Keenan is Senior Consultant, Sri Lanka, at the International Crisis Group in Brussels.

Source: International Crisis Group

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Climate Inaction, Injustice Worsened by Finance Fiasco

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jan 25 2022 – Many factors frustrate the international cooperation needed to address the looming global warming catastrophe. As most rich nations have largely abdicated responsibility, developing countries need to think and act innovatively and cooperatively to better advance the South.

Climate action
The world is woefully offtrack to achieving the current international consensus that it is necessary to keep the global temperature rise by the end of the 21st century to no more than 1.5°C (degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels two centuries ago.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

The last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report warns that temperatures are then likely to exceed 2.2°C. Many climate scientists fear many underlying interactions and feedback effects are still little known or poorly understood. Hence, they have not been factored enough into current projections.

Although the threat of global warming was scientifically recognized almost half a century ago, there has been much foot ragging since. Contrary to widespread belief, industrialized nations – the earliest and biggest greenhouse gas emitters –have actually held back much more adequate responses to the climate threat.

Although the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro secured the international community’s commitment to sustainable development, actual progress since has been modest at best. Undermining multilateralism – particularly since the end of the Cold War around the same time – has certainly not helped.

By effectively killing the Kyoto Protocol, the US has undermined the UN system and other multilateral initiatives not in its own interest since the first Cold War’s end. Consequently, most other signatory rich nations have not even tried to meet the Kyoto Protocol obligations they had signed up to.

Unsurprisingly, then Vice-President Al Gore – who presided over the US Senate’s 95-0 vote against the Kyoto Protocol – did not stress climate change in his 2000 presidential campaign. His public advocacy against global warming only began after his political ambitions ended with his controversial loss to George W. Bush.

Likewise, President Obama did little against global warming during his first presidential term – e.g., at the 2009 Copenhagen UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) – before the US actively shaped the 2015 Paris Agreement.

But, unlike Kyoto, the Paris deal is voluntary – i.e., not binding. Nonetheless, climate action was dealt yet another blow when President Donald Trump withdrew the US in early 2017 before President Joe Biden brought the US back in 2021.

Climate finance
To induce developing countries to accept binding new obligations at the 2009 Copenhagen COP, the European Commission President, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown all pledged US$100 billion of climate finance annually – far from enough, but still a decent start.

But not even half this grossly inadequate, originally European commitment has actually been delivered. Other rich countries have generally given even less than the Europeans. All this is far short of what developing countries need to cope, worsened by requiring more aid to donor country export sales.

Most concessional climate finance since has been to mitigate climate change, with much less for adaptation. Worse, almost nothing has gone to help the typically impoverished victims of global warming for their cumulative ‘losses and damages’!

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 seeks to combat climate change and its impacts. Meanwhile, current global warming continues to worsen the effects of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions by industrialized countries.

In December 2015, the Paris COP reached agreement on a range of voluntary promises. Yet, climate scientists agree that neither the binding Kyoto Protocol nor the voluntary Paris Agreement can keep global warming by the end of the century under 1.5°C.

Economic damage to developing countries due to global warming so far is currently assessed at more than double the better documented adverse impacts on rich nations. But its victims get little help adapting to the daunting consequences of climate change, let alone ‘compensation’ for irreversible ‘losses and damages’.

Meanwhile, ostensible climate finance book-keeping involves considerable ‘creative accounting’. Thus, such resources have been exaggerated in various ways – e.g., by citing numbers for ‘blended finance’ and other dubious arrangements.

Thus, official ‘overseas development assistance’ or aid funds have been abused to subsidize ‘greenwashing’ public-private partnerships – e.g., by ‘de-risking’ profit-seeking private investments presented to the public as ‘climate-friendly’.

Climate justice
More recently, ‘climate justice’ is increasingly being demanded, especially of Western nations – instead of mere ‘climate action’. Although the climate action approach claims to treat all countries equally, by ignoring existing inequalities and disparities, climate action inevitably deepens them.

Invoking justice implies equitable actions are needed to redress the unequal implications of climate actions – e.g., reducing energy generation and use – for the poor and the rich – both people and countries. Thus, without addressing the need for equitable sustainable development, climate action often worsens inequities.

Hence, while claiming to offer seemingly fair solutions, some climate action measures – e.g., simply raising carbon prices, and thus, fuel costs for all – will be unfair in impact. Instead, climate justice measures must equitably address global warming and other climate change challenges.

The challenge – from a sustainable development perspective – is to address climate change while improving living standards equitably, especially for the worse off. This requires widespread generation and use of affordable renewable energy – instead of using fossil fuels – to slow global warming.

But markets are not going to do so on their own. Hence, novel, including hybrid means and much more affordable transfer of relevant technologies are needed to rapidly promote renewable energy use and ecological adaptation to global warming without adversely affecting the worse off.

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);