By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 24 2024 – Somalia is currently in the midst of a dire humanitarian crisis that threatens to destabilize the nation’s security. This crisis is a result of the Somali Civil War, which began in 1991. Altercations between clan-based operations have caused a host of issues over the years, including over 596 civilian casualties, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM). Tensions have greatly intensified in 2024, with levels of internal displacement and food insecurity increasing rapidly.

“Our humanitarian colleagues tell us that since the beginning of the year, an estimated 150,000 people have been displaced by renewed clan conflict and ongoing military operations. This has intensified existing vulnerabilities and further worsened humanitarian needs”, stated Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, at a press briefing at the United Nations (UN) Headquarters.

Levels of generalized violence in Somalia have seen a considerable uptick in recent years. The UN reports an increase in gender-based violence from 2022 onward, with cases of domestic violence and rape soaring among girls in displacement shelters. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates that 45 percent of girls are married off before reaching the age of 18.

Additionally, violence targeting Somali children remains high, with killings, recruitment, and sexual violence becoming more common, according to the Human Rights Watch (HRW). Children have been detained by Somali authorities due to suspicion that they are affiliated with the Al- Shabab armed group. Furthermore, attacks on schools have significantly exacerbated the ongoing education crisis in the country. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) estimates that 85 percent of Somali children are not enrolled in school.

Widespread food insecurity and famine have been issues that have plagued Somalia for decades. From 2020 to 2023, Somalia had experienced its longest drought on record, with the resulting hunger crisis pushing communities to the brink of collapse. Heavy rainfall and flooding in the first quarter of 2024 have left over 4 million people severely food insecure, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).

Armed conflict over the past three decades has significantly impeded the growth of Somalia’s agricultural sector, exacerbating the hunger crisis. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) states that violent altercations have damaged Somalia’s “systems and infrastructure that would have provided a guardrail against climate and economic disaster”. There have also been reports of food and essential resources being burned by warring parties in recent years.

Somalia currently relies heavily on imports to prevent nationwide hunger. The World Bank states, “the economy remained heavily import-dependent as conflict has destroyed the economy’s productive capacity”. It is estimated that over 55 percent of the population lives in extreme poverty, with GDP growth remaining relatively stagnant.

The displacement crisis in Somalia is ranked as one of the most severe in the world. As of now, there are approximately 4 million people internally displaced, which is about 21 percent of the nation’s population.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that 247,000 have been displaced from their homes due to heavy flooding. About 53,600 displaced peoples have been affected by the floods, with critical shelters being destroyed.

The World Bank adds that there are over 38,000 refugees in Somalia from bordering countries such as Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as Yemen. This influx of refugees has overwhelmed Somali displacement shelters, leading to overcrowding, poor hygiene, security concerns, limited access to essential resources, and an increased risk of gender-based violence.

Armed conflict has greatly worsened living conditions and access to critical resources for displaced peoples. A report by the HRW states that attacks by the Al-Shabab armed group have led to blockages in Baidoa town, impeding the arrival of humanitarian aid.

“In July, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders, MSF) announced they were withdrawing from Las Anod due to increased levels of violence, recurrent attacks on medical facilities, and injuries among medical staff”, added HRW. In addition, flooding has significantly impeded humanitarian aid, with many areas being entirely inaccessible.

Additionally, studies by the World Health Organization (WHO) state that Somalia has the distinction of having the most prevalent mental health crisis in the world, as a result of prolonged exposure to violence. Approximately one third of the population is plagued with some kind of psychological disorder, which is greatly exacerbated by the lack of mental health facilities in the nation. WHO has only officially recognized five mental hospitals in the country.

Currently, humanitarian initiatives by the UN are underway in an effort to mitigate the ongoing crisis. UNSOM is dedicated to supporting peacekeeping missions, supported by the federal government. OCHA is in the process of assisting flood-affected communities. The 2024 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for Somalia asks for 1.6 billion dollars to effectively soothe tensions and support over 5.2 million people. The UN greatly encourages donor contributions as only 37 percent of that goal has been reached.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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’);  

By Shafik Hebous and Nate Vernon-Lin
WASHINGTON DC, Sep 24 2024 – What do crypto assets and artificial intelligence have in common? Both are power hungry.

Because of the electricity used by high-powered equipment to “mine” crypto assets, one Bitcoin transaction requires roughly the same amount of electricity as the average person in Ghana or Pakistan consumes in three years. ChatGPT queries require 10 times more electricity than a Google search, due to the electricity consumed by AI data centers.

As the Chart of the Week shows, crypto mining and data centers together accounted for 2 percent of world electricity demand in 2022. And that share is likely to climb to 3.5 percent in three years, according to our estimates based on projections from the International Energy Agency. That would be equivalent to current consumption of Japan, the world’s fifth largest electricity user.

The climate impact of these activities—irrespective of their social and economic benefits—is cause for concern. A recent IMF working paper found that crypto mining could generate 0.7 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2027. Extending the analysis to data centers (based on IEA estimates), means their carbon emissions could reach 450 million tons by 2027, or 1.2 percent of the world total.

The tax system is one way to steer companies toward curbing emissions. According to IMF estimates, a direct tax of $0.047 per kilowatt hour would drive the crypto mining industry to curb its emissions in line with global goals.

If considering air pollution’s impact on local health as well, that tax rate would rise to $0.089, translating into an 85 percent increase in average electricity price for miners. Such a levy would raise annual government revenue of $5.2 billion globally and reduce annual emissions by 100 million tons (around Belgium’s current emissions).

For data centers, a targeted tax on their electricity use would need to be set at $0.032 per kilowatt hour, or $0.052 including air pollution costs. It is slightly lower than for crypto because data centers tend to be in locations with greener electricity. This could raise as much as $18 billion annually.

The situation today is the opposite: many data centers and crypto miners enjoy generous tax exemptions and incentives on income, consumption, and property. Considering the environmental damage, the lack of significant employment, and pressures on the electrical grid (possibly raising prices for households and reducing demand for the use of other low emissions goods, such as electric vehicles), the net benefits of these special tax regimes are unclear at best.

Policy incentives

On the flip side, AI applications could lead to smarter and more efficient power use, which some have posited could help ease electricity demand. The right policies can still incentivize developing AI applications with positive societal spillovers while addressing the environmental damage.

For policymakers, a broad carbon price coordinated across countries would be the best way to curb emissions, because it would encourage reduced fossil-fuel consumption, cleaner power sources, and improved energy efficiency. To limit global warming to 2 degrees, countries would need to introduce additional measures equivalent to a carbon price rising to $85 per ton by 2030.

In the absence of a global carbon price, targeted measures could encourage crypto miners and data centers to use more energy-efficient equipment and may even motivate the adoption of less energy intensive crypto mining. Complementing electricity taxes with credits for zero-emission, bilateral power purchase agreements, and potentially renewable energy certificates would also help.

Cross-border coordination also remains important, as stricter measures in one location could encourage relocation to jurisdictions with lower standards.

As the window of opportunity for containing rising temperatures rapidly closes, expanding renewable energy sources and adopting an appropriate carbon price are urgently needed. In the interim, targeted measures, including taxation, can help mitigate increasing emissions from crypto mining and data centers.

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
CAIRO, Sep 24 2024 – Net zero emissions by 2050 prioritise mitigation for climate stabilisation. Pledges to achieve this still distant target have grown but inadvertently delay urgently needed climate action in the near term.

Net Zero
The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) committed to “the stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [or human-caused] interference with the climate system”.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Consequently, climate negotiations are supposed to focus on stepping up mitigation efforts. But thus bringing the target forward will not prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels well before 2050.

Since the 2021 UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) in Glasgow, many governments have promised to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 touted as achieving climate stabilisation.

After reneging on various other Glasgow commitments, such as ending coal burning for energy, G7 Western leaders piously reiterated the ‘Net Zero by 2050’ promise in April 2024.

The Net Zero target seeks to end further GHG emissions accumulation by mid-century. Thus, Net Zero requires cutting GHG emissions and accumulation well before the century’s ending 2100, the previous target year.

Worse, the agreement allows notable exemptions which are hardly trivial. GHG emissions calculations exclude exemptions, e.g., for military purposes, air and marine transportation. The US alone accounts for a trillion dollars, or two-fifths of world military spending of around 2.5 trillion dollars yearly.

Meanwhile, invoking the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) principle, some developing countries have bargained for more time, e.g., India has announced a 2070 deadline.

Nice slogan, but inadequate
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on keeping warming under 1.5°C was used to advocate for the net zero by 2050 target.

Net zero by 2050 offers an attractively simple target for climate stabilisation. If fully enforced, net zero should stabilise the climate from 2050, but will certainly not check global warming in time.

As politicians, government leaders have been more willing to make pledges far off into the future. After all, the year 2050 was almost three decades after the Glasgow COP in 2021.

Net zero had first appeared at the UNFCCC’s 2014 Emissions Gap Report and at the UNFCCC COP then. World Bank President Jim Kim proclaimed then, “we must achieve zero net emissions of greenhouse gases before 2100”.

The 2015 Paris Agreement committed to “undertake rapid [emissions] reductions … to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.

Hence, the new 2050 target year is a significant improvement over earlier target years, but will not urgently cut GHG emissions in time to avoid breaching the 1.5°C threshold.

Net zero sinks
Removing GHGs will trap and absorb less heat in Earth’s atmosphere. Net zero has revived hope in carbon sinks with little recognition that most consequences of climate change, especially global warming, are largely irreversible.

Many carbon sequestration proponents believe ‘carbon dioxide removal’ and ‘negative emissions’ technologies will be enough. These include carbon capture and storage, topsoil carbon sequestration, largescale tree planting and reforestation, with more controversial ‘geoengineering’ schemes touted more recently.

The IPCC Special Report warned that while some options might be technologically feasible, many have not proved viable at scale. There is also no scientific basis for claims that global warming’s worse effects can be reversed.

The International Energy Agency’s revised Net Zero Roadmap for the 2023 Dubai COP led the UNFCCC to endorse “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

But regardless of advocates’ intentions, mitigation measures have been abused for greenwashing. The 2023 Emissions Gap Report noted the gap between promises and practices has worsened.

Some net-zero advocates want to make State parties more accountable by proposing a new legally binding agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, abandoned by most rich nation governments following US Senate rejection.

Temperature targets
Governments pledged to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming under 1.5°C. But UN Climate Action and Finance Special Envoy Mark Carney expects the threshold to be breached in under a decade, well before 2050!

Over recent decades, the climate policy targets discourse has gone from emissions reduction to limiting temperature warming above pre-industrial levels.

The European Union adopted the two degrees Celsius (2°C) threshold in 1996, insisting it should be for all. However, some of the most vulnerable developing countries, mainly in the tropics, successfully insisted on 1.5°C.

The IPCC argued in 2014 that warming under 2°C would require “near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century”. Carbon budget projections have improved with better GHG emissions and atmospheric persistence monitoring techniques.

Following sustained efforts by some developing countries, led by some of the most vulnerable, a later IPCC Special Report urged keeping global warming under 1.5°C. Low-lying island nations rallied around “1.5°C to stay alive”, with many calling for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to phase them out.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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’);