Connect with us

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Is Asia and the Pacific ready for the global climate stage?

Published

4 years ago

on

Is Asia and the Pacific ready for the global climate stage?
Spread the love

The Wikipedia article on the 2015 “Paris Agreement” says that “Negotiations in Paris took place over a two week span, and continued throughout the three final nights.[10]” and that:

The negotiations almost failed because of a single word when the US legal team realised at the last minute that “shall” had been approved, rather than “should”, meaning that developed countries would have been legally obliged to cut emissions: the French solved the problem by changing it as a “typographical error”.[13] [That statement — that France instead of America raised the objection to “shall” — is false. Actually, it was the chief American negotiator, Todd Stern, who labelled it that and demanded it to be eliminated from the text.] At the conclusion of COP21 (the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties), on 12 December 2015, the final wording of the Paris Agreement was adopted by consensus by the 195 UNFCCC participating member states and the European Union.[14] Nicaragua indicated they had wanted to object to the adoption as they denounced the weakness of the Agreement, but were not given a chance.[15][16] In the Agreement the members promised to reduce their carbon output “as soon as possible” and to do their best to keep global warming “to well below 2 degrees C” (3.6 °F).[17]

U.S President Barack Obama announced on 12 December 2015 that 

In my first inaugural address, I committed this country to the tireless task of combating climate change and protecting this planet for future generations. 

Two weeks ago, in Paris, I said before the world that we needed a strong global agreement to accomplish this goal — an enduring agreement that reduces global carbon pollution and sets the world on a course to a low-carbon future. 

A few hours ago, we succeeded.  We came together around the strong agreement the world needed.  We met the moment.

I want to commend President Hollande and Secretary General Ban for their leadership and for hosting such a successful summit, and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius for presiding with patience and resolve.  And I want to give a special thanks to Secretary John Kerry, my Senior Advisor Brian Deese, our chief negotiator Todd Stern, and everyone on their teams for their outstanding work and for making America proud.

It was nothing but theater, to fool the public. It succeeded in doing that.

Here is how Britain’s Guardian,  under the headline “How a ‘typo’ nearly derailed the Paris climate deal”, phrased the matter: this Agreement was

confirmed by US secretary of state, John Kerry, that the US had objected to Article 4.4 on page 21 of the 31-page final agreement. US government lawyers had found, it was said to their horror, that they had unwittingly approved a vital word which could make the difference between rich countries being legally obliged to cut emissions rather than just having to try to: “shall” rather than “should”.

Here is global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright on the significance of the two words:

This article requires developed countries to undertake economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets but developing countries to only “continue to enhance” their mitigation efforts. In the draft that was presented for adoption there were two critical words – “shall” and “should”. The expression “shall” applied to the developed countries’ obligation and the word “should” applied to the developing countries’ obligation.

There was a crisis.

According to some, it had always been intended that both rich and poor countries should have the same obligation, namely “should”, not “shall”. This was of huge importance to the US especially, which, it said, would have had difficulty signing up to any legally binding obligation to implement its reduction target.

One reporter, at the time, Lisa Friedman, of Climate Wire, said that when “the Americans spotted the ‘shall’, word began to spread that the United States had a problem.” It was the Obama-appointed chief U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, who noticed the word, called it “a clerical error,” and demanded that it be replaced by the legally empty “should.” It wasn’t the French Government that raised the objection and gutted the text, but, instead, Obama’s negotiator, who did this gutting of the text.

In other words: the U.S., which had contributed far more to creating climate-change than had any other single country, and which had reaped the vast economic benefits from all of that fossil-fuels burning, was demanding that the poor countries, which were only beginning to industrialize, must be obligated just as much as the U.S. would be obligated, to reduce fossil-fuels-burning, or else the U.S. wouldn’t sign the Agreement — and neither would its allies, such as France. 

In order to understand Obama’s motive in this, one must understand his motive in a certain key phrase that he used throughout his Presidency but which was downplayed by the press and therefore never attracted the public’s attention as it should have done.

Barack Obama repeatedly referred to the United States as being the only indispensable nation — that all others are “dispensable” — such as when President Obama addressed America’s future military leaders, at West Point, on 28 May 2014, by telling them:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.

He was telling the military that America’s economic competition, against the BRICS nations, is a key matter for America’s military, and not only for America’s private corporations; that U.S. taxpayers fund America’s military at least partially in order to impose the wills and extend the wealth of the stockholders in America’s corporations abroad; and that the countries against which America is in economic competition are “dispensable” but America “is and remains the one indispensable nation.” This, supposedly, also authorizes America’s weapons and troops to fight against countries whose “governments seek a greater say in global forums.” In other words: Stop the growing economies from growing faster than America’s. There is another name for the American Government’s supremacist ideology. This term is “fascism.”

It is natural that a person who wants to keep America on top by all means including by keeping down the nations that are rising would be viscerally opposed to the original draft’s application of “should” to the poor countries while applying “shall” to the rich ones — especially to the one nation (America) that alone had contributed more than a quarter of all of the greenhouse gases that have been added to the global atmosphere since the year 1850 — the effective start of the industrial revolution.

So, Obama’s representatives demanded that the word “should” would apply not only to the poor countries (as in the original draft) but to the rich countries, including the U.S. — and Obama got his way, at the very close of the conference, in order to have the PR benefit of seeming, to the gullible throughout the world, to be in favor of halting global warming. It was pure PR (for Obama, and also for leaders of the other highly-developed countries; and, thus, global warming won’t be affected, at all, by the Paris Climate Agreement, nor by the other, similarly insincere, mouthings by billionaire-financed ‘environmentalist’ ‘charities’. It is all theater.

However, this does not mean that there is no possible way that humans might be able to  halt and to undo the catastrophic harm and terminal danger that we have perpetrated upon the biosphere. There might be such a way, but it has nothing to do with any international agreements, and it also has nothing directly to do with suppressing the consumption of fossil fuels, but it is instead entirely focused upon outlawing the purchase of investments in fossil-fuels-extraction corporations such as ExxonMobil.

The way to stop global warming (if it still can be stopped) is to ban purchases of stocks and of bonds — i.e., of all forms of investment securities (corporate shares and even loans being made to the corporation) — of enterprises that extract from the ground (land or else underwater) fossil fuels: coal, oil, and/or gas.

For examples: in 2017, the world’s largest fossil-fuels extractors were, in order: 1. Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia billionaires); 2. Chevron (U.S. billionaires); 3. Gazprom (Russia billionaires); 4. ExxonMobil (U.S. billionaires); 5. National Iranian Oil Co. (Iran billionaires); 6. BP (UK billionaires); 7. Shell (Netherlands billionaires); 8. Coal India (India billionaires); 9. PEMEX (Mexico billionaires); 10. Petroleos de Venezuela (Venezuela billionaires); 11. PetroChina/CNPC (China billionaires); and 12. Peabody Energy (U.S. billionaires). (NOTE: U.S. billionaires, allied with Saudi, UK, Netherlands, and India, billionaires, are trying to absorb, into their team, Russia, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, and China, each of which latter nations had actually nationalized their fossil fuels, so that those nations’ Government, instead of any billionaires, would own those assets, in the name of all of the given nation’s residents. Though Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S.-and-allied side of the Cold War secretly continued, and continues, today. Consequently, the U.S.-led team failed to achieve total conquest of the Russia-led team, and is now increasingly trying to do that: achieve total global hegemony, so that the entire world will be controlled only by U.S.-and-allied billionaires. This explains a lot of today’s international relations.)  All fossil-fuels extractors compete ferociously, as producers of a basic global commodity, but the proposal that is being made here will affect all of them and all countries, even if it is done by only one country.

It needs to be outlawed (in some major country, perhaps even just one) in order to save our planet. Here’s how and why doing that in even just a single country might save the planet (this is a bit long and complicated, but avoiding global catastrophe is worth the trouble, so, you might find it worth your while to read this):

These companies exist in order to discover, extract, refine, and market, fossil fuels, in order for these fuels to be burned — but those activities are killing this planet. Buying stock in, and lending money to, these firms doesn’t purchase their products, but it does incentivize all phases of these firms’ operations, including the discovery of yet more fields of oil, gas, and coal, to add yet more to their existing fossil-fuel reserves, all of which are discovered in order to be burned. Unless these companies’ stock-values are driven down to near zero and also no investor will be lending to them, all such operations will continue, and the Earth will therefore surely die from the resulting over-accumulation of global-warming gases, and increasing build-up of heat (the “greenhouse-effect”), from that burning.

To purchase stock in a fossil-fuel extractor — such as ExxonMobil or BP — or to buy their bonds or otherwise lend to them, is to invest in or fund that corporation’s employment of fossil-fuel explorers to discover new sources of oil, gas, or coal, to drill, and ultimately burn. Such newly discovered reserves are excess inventories that must never be burnt if this planet is to avoid becoming uninhabitable. But these firms nonetheless continue to employ people to find additional new places to drill, above and beyond the ones that they already own — which existing inventories are already so enormous as to vastly exceed what can be burnt without destroying the Earth many times over. To buy the stock in such corporations (or else lend to them) is consequently to fund the killing of our planet. It’s to fund an enormous crime, and should be treated as such. To invest in these companies should be treated as a massive crime. 

The only people who will suffer from outlawing the purchase of stock in, and lending to, fossil-fuel extractors, are individuals who are already invested in those corporations. Since we’ve already got vastly excessive known reserves of fossil fuels, discovering yet more such reserves is nothing else than the biggest imaginable crime against all future-existing people, who can’t defend themselves against these activities that are being done today. Only our government, today, can possibly protect future people, and it will be to blame if it fails to do so. The single most effective way it can do this, its supreme obligation, is to criminalize the purchase of stock in fossil-fuels extractors, and to bar loans to them. Here’s why (and please follow this closely now):

The IMF says that “To limit the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius — the more conservative of the goals agreed to by governments at the 2015 climate change talks in Paris — more than two-thirds of current known reserves, let alone those yet to be discovered (see Table 1), must remain in the ground (IEA 2012).” Obviously, then, what the oil and gas and coal companies are doing by continuing exploration is utterly idiotic from an economic standpoint — it’s adding yet more to what already are called “unburnable reserves.” Thus, waiting yet longer for a technological breakthrough, such as fossil-fuels corporations have always promised will happen but nobody has ever actually delivered (and such as is exemplified here), is doomed, because if and when such a real breakthrough would occur, we’d already be too late, and the uncontrollably spiraling and accelerating feedback-loops would already be out of control even if they weren’t uncontrollable back then. We’d simply be racing, then, to catch up with — and to get ahead of — an even faster rise in global temperatures than existed at that previous time. Things get exponentially worse with each and every year of delay. Consequently, something sudden, sharp, and decisive, must happen immediately, and it can happen only by a fundamental change becoming instituted in our laws, not in our technology. The solution, if  it comes, will come from government, and not even possibly come from industry (technological breakthroughs). For governments to instead wait, and to hope for a “technological breakthrough,” is simply for our planet to die. It’s to doom this planet. It’s to abandon the government’s obligation to the future (its supreme obligation). The reason why is that what’s difficult to achieve now (preventing the murder of our planet), will soon be impossible to achieve.

On 13 November 2019, the International Energy Agency reported that “the momentum behind clean energy is insufficient to offset the effects of an expanding global economy and growing population,” and “The world urgently needs to put a laser-like focus on bringing down global emissions. This calls for a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else who is committed to tackling climate change.” Obviously, we are all heading the world straight to catastrophe. Drastic action is needed, and it must happen now — not in some indefinite future. But the IEA was wrong to endorse “calls for a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else,” which is the gradual approach, which is doomed to fail. And it also requires agreement, which might not come, and compromises, which might make the result ineffective. 

I have reached out to Carbon Tracker, the organization that encourages investors to disinvest from fossil fuels. Their leader, Mark Campanale, declined my request for them to endorse my proposal. He endorses instead “a new fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty supported by movements calling to leave fossil fuels in the ground.” When I responded that it’s vastly more difficult, for states (individual governments) to mutually pass, into their respective nation’s laws, a treaty amongst themselves (since it requires unanimity amongst all of them instituting into each one of their legal systems exactly that same law), than it is for any state ON ITS OWN to institute a law (such as I propose), he still wasn’t interested. I asked him why he wasn’t. He said “I’ve chosen a different strategy for my organization.” I answered: “All that I am seeking from you is an ENDORSEMENT. I am not asking you to change your ‘strategy’ (even if you really ought to ADD this new strategy to your existing one).” He replied simply by terminating communication with me and saying, without explanation, “We don’t always agree.”

Here is that “treaty supported by movements calling to leave fossil fuels in the ground”. As you can see there, it was posted in 2012, and as of now (nine years later) it has been signed by 8 individuals, no nations (and not even by any organizations). Mark Campanale isn’t among these 8.

Carbon Tracker is secretive of the identities, and size of donations, of its donors, but its website does make clear that it’s a UK organization that has designed itself so as to be as beneficial for tax-write-offs to U.S. billionaire donors as possible, and “Our UK organisation has an Equivalency Determination (‘ED’) which allows it to be recognised by the IRS as a 501(c)3 US Public Charity.  We have held the ED since February 2016 and is maintained annually by NGO Source on behalf of our major US donors.” In short: it’s part of the U.S.-led team of billionaires. Perhaps this organization’s actual function is that (since the nations that have nationalized their fossil fuels haven’t yet been able to be taken over as outright colonies or vassal-states controlled by the U.S.-led group) the residents inside those outside countries will be paying the price (in reduced Government-services, etc.) from a gradual transition to a ‘reduced carbon’ world. (Everybody but those billionaires will be paying the price.) This mythical aim, of a ‘reduced-carbon’ ‘transition’, would then be a veiled means of gradually impoverishing the residents in those nations, until, ultimately, those people there will support a coup, which will place U.S.-and-allied billionaires in charge of their Government (such as happened in Ukraine in 2014). This appears to be their policy regarding Venezuela, Iran, and several other countries. If it is additionally influencing the ‘transition to a low-carbon economy’, then it’s actually blocking the needed change in this case (which isn’t, at all, change that’s of the gradual type, but is, instead, necessarily decisive, and sudden, if it is to happen at all). However, Carbon Tracker is hardly unique in being controlled by U.S.-and-allied billionaires, and there are, also, many other ways to employ the gradual approach — an approach which is doomed to fail on this matter. A few other of these delaying-tactics will also be discussed here.

Some environmental organizations recommend instead improving labelling laws and informing consumers on how they can cut their energy-usages (such as here), but even if that works, such changes, in consumers’ behaviors, are no more effective against climate-change than would be their using buckets to lower the ocean-level in order to prevent it from overflowing and flooding the land. What’s actually needed is a huge jolt to the system itself, immediately. Only systemic thinking can solve such a problem.

Making such a change — outlawing the purchase of stock in, and prohibiting loans to, fossil-fuel extractors — would impact enormously the stock-prices of all fossil fuels corporations throughout the world, even if it’s done only in this country. It would quickly force all of the fossil-fuel extractors to eliminate their exploration teams and to increase their dividend payouts, just in order to be able to be “the last man standing” when they do all go out of business — which then would occur fairly soon. Also: it would cause non-fossil-energy stock-prices to soar, and this influx of cash into renewable-energy investing would cause their R&D also to soar, which would increasingly reduce costs of the energy they supply. It would transform the world, fairly quickly, and very systematically. And all of this would happen without taxpayers needing to pay tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars, or for governments to sign onto any new treaties. And if additional nations copy that first one, then the crash in market-values of all fossil-fuels corporations will be even faster, and even steeper.

As regards existing bonds and other debt-obligations from fossil-fuels extractors, each such corporation would need to establish its own policies regarding whether or not, and if so then how, to honor those obligations, since there would no longer be a market for them. Ending the market would not be equivalent to ending the obligations. The law would nullify the obligations, but the corporation’s opting to fulfill those obligations wouldn’t be illegal — it would merely be optional.

This would be a taking from individuals who have been investing in what the overwhelming majority of experts on global warming say are investments in a massive crime against future generations, and we are now in an emergency situation, which is more than merely a national emergency, a global one, so that such governmental action would not be merely advisable but urgently necessary and 100% in accord with the public welfare and also in accord with improving distributive justice.

The only way possible in order to avoid getting into the uncontrollable feedback-cycles (feedback-loops) that would set this planet racing toward becoming another Mars is to quickly bring a virtual end to the burning of fossil fuels. That can happen only  if fossil fuels become uneconomic. But common methods proposed for doing that, such as by imposing carbon taxes, would hit consumers directly (by adding a tax to what they buy), and thereby turn consumers into advocates for the fossil-fuel industries (advocates on the fossil-fuels-companies’ side, favoring elimination of that tax upon their products). In this key respect, such proposals are counterproductive, because they dis-incentivize the public to support opposition to fossil-fuel extraction. Such proposals are therefore politically unacceptable, especially in a democracy, where consumers have powerful political voice at the ballot-box. Any carbon tax would also anger the consuming public against environmentalists. Turning consumers into friends of the fossil-fuels extractors would be bad. What I am proposing is not like that, at all. Investors are a much smaller number of voters than are consumers. Everyone is a consumer, but only a relatively tiny number of people are specifically fossil-fuel investors. To terminate the freedom those investors have to sell their stock, by making illegal for anyone to buy  that stock, is the most practicable way to prevent global burnout (if it still can be prevented). This needs to be done right now.

How was slavery ended in the United States? It became illegal for anyone to own slaves — and the way that this was done is that it became illegal for anyone to buy a slave. The same needs to be done now in order to (possibly) avoid runaway global heat-up.

Once it’s done, those firms will go out of business. (First, these firms will increase their dividend-payouts to their stockholders while they lay off their explorers, but then they’ll cut their other costs, and then they’ll fold. But the objective isn’t that; it’s to make their products uneconomic to produce, market, and sell; and this will do that, even before all of those firms have become eliminated.) All of today’s existing economies-of-scale in the fossil-fuels-producing-and-marketing industries will then be gone, and will become replaced by new economies-of-scale that will rise sharply in non-carbon energy, as R&D there will be soaring, while the fossil-fuels producers fade out and fade away. 

This is the only realistically possible way to avoid global burnout. It must be done. And even some top executives in fossil-fuels extractors harbor personal hopes that it will be done. For example:

Shell CEO Says Governments, Not Firms, Are Failing on Climate Change

On Monday, 14 October 2019, Reuters headlined “Exclusive: No choice but to invest in oil, Shell CEO says” and reported:

Ben van Beurden expressed concern that some investors could ditch Shell, acknowledging that shares in the company were trading at a discount partly due to “societal risk”.

“I am afraid of that, to be honest,” he said.

“But I don’t think they will flee for the justified concern of stranded assets … (It is) the continued pressure on our sector, in some cases to the point of demonisation, that scares asset managers.”

“It is not at a scale that the alarm bells are ringing, but it is an unhealthy trend.”

Van Beurden put the onus for achieving a transformation to low-carbon economies on governments.

He didn’t suggest any specific policies which governments should take, but he did say “that not enough progress had been made to reach the Paris climate goal of limiting global warming to ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.” Furthermore:

Delaying implementation of the right climate policies could result in “knee-jerk” political responses that might be very disruptive to society, he said. “Let the air out of the balloon as soon as you can before the balloon actually bursts,” van Beurden said.

He is, in a sense, trapped, as the head of one of the world’s largest fossil-fuel extractors. He doesn’t want to be “demonised,” but he is professionally answering to — and obligated to serve — investors who are still profiting from destroying the world. Though he acknowledges that consumers cannot initiate the necessary policy-change, and that investors aren’t yet; and though he doesn’t want government to do anything which “might be very disruptive to society,” he does want governments to “Let the air out of the balloon as soon as you can before the balloon actually bursts,” and he’s therefore contemplating — and is even advising — that governments must do the job now, and not wait around any longer to take the necessary decisive action. 

Here’s what that type of governmental action would be (and unlike the Paris Climate Agreement, it doesn’t require an international consensus — which doesn’t actually exist among the nations).

Why is this the ONLY way? No other proposals can even possibly work: 

The concept of “bridge fuels,” such as methane as being a substitute for petroleum, is a propaganda device (another delaying-tactic) by the fossil-fuels industry and its agents, in order to slow the decline of those industries. For example, on 16 November 2019, Oil Price Dot Com headlined “Why Banning Fossil Fuel Investment Is A Huge Mistake”, and Cyril Widdershoven, a long-time writer for and consultant to fossil-fuel corporations, argued against an effort by the European Investment Bank to “put more pressure on all parties to phase out gas, oil and coal projects.” Widdershoven’s argument is that “experts seem to agree that the best way to target lower CO2 emissions in the EU is to substitute oil and coal power generation in Eastern Europe with natural gas.” He says, “Even in the most optimistic projections, renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, are not going to be able to counter the need for power generation capacity. If the EIB blocks a soft energy transition via natural gas, the Paris Agreement will almost certainly fail.” 

The unstated “experts” that Widdershoven cited are, like himself, hirees of the fossil-fuels industries. Furthermore, this go-slow approach is already recognized by the IMF and IEA to be doomed to fail at avoiding global burnout.

Furthermore — and this is perhaps the most important fact of all — government-support has largely been responsible for the success of fossil-fuel corporations (especially now for natural gas), and, if fully replaced by government-support going instead to non-fossil-fuel corporations, there will then be a skyrocketing increase in R&D in those non-fossil-fuel technologies, which skyrocketing R&D, there, is desperately needed, if any realistic hope is to exist, at all, of avoiding global burn-out. 

On 17 December 2019, I had sent this argument (emailed, under the “Subject” line of “Here is the way to avoid happening again what just happened in Madrid:”) to the:

—

Dear EU Climate Commissioners:

Re: 

He [Timmermans] said right wing countries like Canada, the USA and Brazil were preventing the EU from reiterating the Paris Agreement requirements in the COP conclusions.

What is needed is a method which (unlike international agreement on carbon-trading credits) won’t require agreement among nations, which are too corrupt to take the necessary collective action to avert catastrophe. Here’s the solution which could be implemented by, say, the EU, or even just by Germany, or just by India, or just by China, alone, if not by any of the far-right countries (such as U.S. and Brazil), which action, taken by any one of them, would create the necessary cascading-effect among all nations, that could transform the world and perhaps save the future (and please do follow closely the argument here, and click onto any link here wherever you might have any questions, because this is a truly new idea, and every part of it is fully documented here):

Then came the argument that I’ve just presented. On 8 April 2020, I received back a reply that was full of the usual platitudes and said “Europe will continue to lead the global low-carbon transition we have agreed. I hope on your continued support for reaching the common climate objectives.”

I also emailed the entire argument to all of the lawyers on the staffs of all of the billionaires-funded ‘nonprofits’ or ‘charities’ that are active supposedly against global warming, and not a single one of those persons even responded, at all.

I also contacted both of my U.S. Senators and communicated with the Senator’s specialist staffer on environmental issues. One of them never replied, but the other said that outlawing purchases of investments in something might be “unconstitutional.” I asked how that could even possibly true, because narcotic drugs are illegal to purchase, and many other types of purchases also are illegal in America. The staffer never replied.

In other words: the entire ‘movement’ against global warming is controlled by the same tiny fraction of the global population who own the stocks and bonds that are invested in and control the fossil-fuels-extraction corporations, the same group of people who donate most of the money to the political campaigns of America’s successful politicians. 

The entire ‘movement’ against global warming is fraudulent. It’s not ONLY the Paris Climate Agreement that’s fraudulent.

Related

Source


Spread the love
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Trump’s Tariff Tsunami: A Global Economic Earthquake with Far-Reaching Implications

Published

1 month ago

on

April 15, 2025

By

Spread the love

Baba Yunus Muhammad

Washington, D.C. – Long before his 2024 re-election campaign, Donald J. Trump had been an unrelenting advocate for protectionist trade policies. His views on tariffs, long cast as a pillar of his economic nationalism, have now crystallized into a sweeping policy agenda with the potential to reshape the global economic order. Last Wednesday, President Trump took to the White House lawn, brandishing an oversized chart, to announce the most aggressive tariff regime in modern U.S. history—a unilateral 10% blanket tariff on virtually all imported goods, complemented by so-called “reciprocal” tariffs targeting countries he accuses of exploiting the United States.

The move has not just rattled America’s trading partners, it has sent shockwaves through the entire global economy. Financial markets plunged, manufacturing sectors braced for retaliation, and policymakers around the world scrambled to assess the fallout. But what lies behind this bold—and, some argue, reckless—push for economic decoupling? And what does it mean for the Islamic world and emerging markets?

Economic Nationalism Reborn

Trump’s tariff blitz is the fullest expression yet of his “America First” economic philosophy—an ideological throwback to a 1950s-era America that dominated global manufacturing in the wake of World War II. According to economic historian Dr. Alan Scott, this nostalgia is at the heart of Trump’s thinking. “The U.S. was uniquely advantaged during that period—Europe and Japan were devastated, and America had a virtual monopoly on industrial output,” he says. “That era cannot be recreated.”

Nonetheless, Trump’s rhetoric is anchored in the belief that aggressive tariffs will resuscitate America’s industrial base, revitalize blue-collar employment, and address the inequalities wrought by decades of globalization. Whether those goals are achievable—or even realistic—is highly contested.

The Global Repercussions: Allies and Adversaries in the Crosshairs

The effects of the new tariffs are global in scope. China, the U.S.’s main strategic rival, faces an unprecedented 54% total levy on its exports to the United States. Beijing has already vowed retaliatory action. Traditional allies have not fared much better: the European Union is now subject to a 20% tariff; the United Kingdom, 10%; and Japan, despite pledging $1 trillion in U.S. investments, is hit with a 24% tariff.

Notably, Canada and Mexico have been spared—at least temporarily—though they too have been locked in past trade disputes with the Trump administration. For the Islamic world and Global South, the stakes are even higher. Several of the world’s poorest and most trade-dependent countries have been targeted with tariffs as high as 50%. These include Cambodia, Laos, Madagascar, Vietnam, Myanmar—and critically, Muslim-majority nations such as Pakistan and Indonesia are watching with deep concern, given their heavy reliance on U.S. markets for textiles, apparel, and electronics.

A Blow to the Global South

Among the most worrying elements of the policy is its potential impact on least-developed and low-income countries. Nations like Lesotho and Cambodia—already reeling from reduced U.S. development assistance—now face steep tariffs on their exports. For smaller Islamic economies trying to escape the middle-income trap or build industrial bases, this could be economically devastating.

“Tariffs of this magnitude will not just curb growth, they could collapse entire industries,” warns Dr. Aisha Rahman, an economist with the Islamic Development Bank. “Many of these countries have benefited from preferential trade terms. Now, they risk being crowded out of global markets just when they are beginning to integrate.”

There is also the risk that products originally intended for the U.S. market could be dumped in Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia, creating new competitive pressures for local businesses.

Inflation, Uncertainty, and the U.S. Backlash

Domestically, the response has been fraught with anxiety. Wall Street has registered its displeasure with sharp declines: the Nasdaq dropped 6%, the S&P 500 fell 4.8%, and the Dow slid 3.9%. The U.S. dollar weakened, oil prices plummeted, and the bond market reflected growing fears of a recession.

Analysts warn of rising inflation and unemployment. A study by the Wall Street Journal projects that if the tariffs remain, inflation could spike to 4.4% by year-end, with unemployment hitting 5.5%. This economic strain would disproportionately impact low-income households—precisely those whom Trump claims to champion.

Even within Trump’s own party, unease is growing. While Vice President JD Vance dismissed the market reaction as overblown, some Republican lawmakers are beginning to break ranks, concerned that the long-term economic costs will outweigh any short-term political gains.

Can the Islamic World Respond Strategically?

For Muslim-majority countries—particularly those striving to expand manufacturing and export-led growth—Trump’s new trade regime presents both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, increased U.S. protectionism may shut the door on critical export markets. On the other, it could accelerate South-South trade partnerships, regional economic blocs, and Islamic finance-led industrial investment.

Dr. Omar El-Zein, trade advisor to the OIC, argues that “the Islamic world must now pursue intra-OIC trade more seriously than ever before. If the West turns inward, we must turn to one another.”

Indeed, in an era where multilateralism is being tested and global supply chains are being restructured, there is a chance to forge new trade alignments rooted in mutual benefit, Islamic economic values, and strategic autonomy.

Conclusion: Between Ideology and Impact

President Trump’s tariffs are not merely a set of economic instruments—they are a declaration of ideological war on the globalized economic consensus. While they may serve a symbolic political purpose in the U.S., their real-world impact will be felt far beyond its borders—in factories in Bangladesh, in textile mills in Egypt, and in rice fields in Indonesia.

The Islamic world, already grappling with structural development challenges, must now brace for a more hostile and unpredictable global trading environment. Whether it chooses to respond with disunity or collective resolve may well define its economic future.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is President, Africa Islamic Economic Forum, Ghana


Spread the love
Continue Reading

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

How Africa’s Largest Economy Lost 50% of Its GDP

Published

1 month ago

on

April 11, 2025

By

Spread the love

 Hafiz M. Ahmed

In 2014, Nigeria stood atop Africa’s economic podium, its GDP recalibrated to $510 billion, a figure that cemented its status as the continent’s largest economy. Oil wealth, a burgeoning tech scene, and a population of 220 million fuelled ambitions of global ascendancy. Yet, a decade later, that triumph has unravelled: GDP has halved to $253 billion by 2024, a stark testament to structural frailties and external blows. Inflation has surged to 33.95%, poverty ensnares 46% of the populace, and youth unemployment festers at 40%. This is no mere statistical blip—it is a crisis demanding urgent reckoning. But Nigeria’s story need not end in decline. Beneath the rubble lies a nation poised for resurgence, armed with vast resources, a dynamic workforce, and nascent reforms. The path to recovery is arduous yet attainable. Here, we dissect the collapse and chart a credible blueprint for Nigeria to reclaim its mantle as Africa’s economic powerhouse.

The descent began with oil, the artery of Nigeria’s economy. From 2000 to 2014, annual GDP growth averaged 7%, peaking at $568 billion, propelled by crude prices that topped $115 per barrel. Oil constituted 90% of exports and 70% of government revenue, per the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). But the 2014 price crash to $50 per barrel exposed a fatal dependency. By 2023, production slumped to 1.28 million barrels per day (mbpd)—below the OPEC quota of 1.5 mbpd—haemorrhaging $10 billion annually to theft, according to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Foreign exchange reserves dwindled from $38 billion in 2019 to $33 billion in 2023, per the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), as oil receipts faltered. This overreliance has left Nigeria vulnerable, yet it also signals an overdue pivot to diversification.

Structural deficiencies run deep. Agriculture, employing 45% of Nigerians, contributes just 25% to GDP, its productivity stymied—maize yields average 1.8 tons per hectare against a global norm of 5 tons, per the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Manufacturing, now 9% of GDP in 2023, down from 9.5% in 2015, is throttled by electricity shortages costing businesses $29 billion yearly, per the World Bank. Nigeria generates a paltry 4,000 megawatts for 220 million people, compared to South Africa’s 58,000 MW for 60 million. Import reliance—$2.13 billion spent on wheat, rice, and sugar in 2023, per the African Development Bank (AfDB)—drains reserves, a vulnerability magnified by a 40% wheat price surge following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These are not insurmountable flaws; they are clarion calls for reform.

Monetary policy missteps exacerbated the malaise. The CBN’s artificial naira peg at 305 to the dollar until 2023 depleted reserves and spawned a parallel market where rates hit 1,600 by 2024. Post-devaluation, the currency lost 70% of its value, per IMF estimates, driving inflation to 33.95% in May 2024—food inflation reached 40%, per the NBS. A 50kg bag of rice, a staple, soared from ₦25,000 in 2022 to ₦80,000 in 2024, punishing households where 46% live below $1.90 daily, per the World Bank. Public debt escalated to 46% of GDP in 2023, with 89% of budgeted deficits financed through borrowing, per PwC’s 2024 analysis. This fiscal strain is severe, but it is not irreparable—policy agility can stem the tide.

Corruption and insecurity have exacted a punishing toll. Oil theft, at 400,000 barrels daily in 2022, costs $10 billion annually, while Nigeria languishes at 145 out of 180 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Customs inefficiencies at Apapa Port siphon $4 billion yearly, per the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). In the northeast, Boko Haram’s insurgency has inflicted $100 billion in economic losses since 2009, per estimates, slashing agricultural output by 20%. Banditry and separatist unrest further erode stability. External shocks—COVID-19’s 6.1% GDP contraction in Q2 2020, per the IMF, and Ukraine-driven fuel price hikes (petrol to ₦671 per litre in 2023, per the AfDB)—have compounded the damage. Yet, these challenges, while daunting, are not destiny.

The GDP’s 50% plunge is partly a statistical artefact. The 2014 rebasing inflated it by 89%, but naira devaluation reversed dollar-based gains. In purchasing power parity (PPP), Nigeria’s economy stood at $1.2 trillion in 2023, per the IMF, among Africa’s top three. Still, the human cost is stark: 63% of Nigerians—133 million—face multidimensional poverty, per the NBS, with 10.5 million children out of school, the world’s highest. Youth unemployment, at 40% in 2023, drives the “Japa” exodus—5,000 doctors emigrated in 2022, per the Nigerian Medical Association. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), comprising 96% of businesses and 84% of jobs, per The Business Year 2024, access just 5% of bank loans. These figures are sobering, but they underscore a latent capacity yearning for activation.

Nigeria’s fundamentals remain compelling. Its tech sector—epitomised by Flutterwave and Paystack—secured $1.8 billion in venture capital in 2023, per TechCabal, with annual growth of 30% since 2020. Agriculture spans 70 million arable hectares, a resource base that slashed rice imports by 40% since 2015, per the AfDB. The Dangote Refinery, operational since 2024 with 650,000 barrels daily, promises $5 billion in annual forex savings. A population projected to reach 428 million by 2050, per UN estimates, offers an unrivalled market. Nigeria’s economic reset hinges on harnessing these strengths through decisive, pragmatic measures. Below are the critical steps to restore and elevate this giant.

Diversification must be the cornerstone. Agriculture, with targeted investment, could generate $100 billion annually. Mechanisation—raising tractor density from 1 per 100 farmers to 10, as in Kenya, per the FAO—could double yields within five years. Nigeria’s 60% share of global cassava production, currently worth $1.5 billion, could reach $5 billion with processing plants, per UNCTAD projections. Leveraging the $2 trillion global halal market, where demand grows 6% annually, per the Halal Trade Expo, is a natural fit—northern Nigeria’s 100 million Muslims could supply certified meat to the Gulf, mirroring Malaysia’s $12 billion halal export success. A $500 million fund for irrigation and agro-industrial zones, coupled with 10-year tax holidays, could catalyse this shift, emulating Ghana’s Planting for Food initiative, which tripled rice output since 2017.

Energy reform is non-negotiable. Nigeria’s $29 billion annual power deficit demands a 10,000 MW boost by 2030—solar farms in the sun-drenched north, harnessing 300 days of sunlight, could deliver half, drawing on Kenya’s $1 billion renewable model that electrified 70% of rural areas. Private investment, as demonstrated by Dangote’s $19 billion refinery, could bridge the $190 billion energy gap, per UNCTAD estimates, if paired with grid upgrades slashing 40% transmission losses, per the World Bank. Reliable power would revive manufacturing, lifting its GDP share to 15% within a decade and unlocking export potential under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Corruption requires surgical intervention. Digitising oil flows, as Norway does with real-time tracking, could recover $10 billion yearly, per NNPC data. E-governance—online tax and procurement platforms—could save $2 billion in leakages, per EFCC projections, while a robust anti-graft framework with independent audits and whistleblower protections rebuilds credibility. Foreign direct investment, which fell 33% to $3.3 billion in 2023, per UNCTAD, would rebound as opacity fades.

SMEs, the economy’s backbone, need oxygen. A $1 billion loan guarantee scheme, akin to South Africa’s SME Fund that created 30,000 jobs since 2019, could unlock $10 billion in credit, addressing the 5% lending gap. Vocational training for 1 million entrepreneurs annually—mirroring Rwanda’s 7% youth unemployment drop—enhances competitiveness. Linking SMEs to AfCFTA’s $3.4 trillion market via export hubs could elevate intra-African trade from 16% to 30%, per AfDB targets.

Human capital is the linchpin. Raising education spending to 15% of the budget—$10 billion—could build 10,000 schools, per UNESCO benchmarks, halving the 10.5 million out-of-school figure. Technical institutes, like Ghana’s, could train 500,000 youths yearly, cutting unemployment by 5%. Healthcare demands $1 billion for 1,000 mobile clinics, reaching 20 million rural residents and staunching medical brain drain—India’s model reduced infant mortality 30%. A skilled, healthy workforce is Nigeria’s competitive edge.

Infrastructure must match ambition. A $15 billion overhaul—bolstered by the AfDB’s $1.44 billion 2024 commitment—could halve logistics costs, currently $1 billion yearly. Rail links, like Ethiopia’s $4 billion Addis-Djibouti line, and port digitisation, as at Morocco’s Tanger Med, would expedite trade, positioning Nigeria as an AfCFTA hub. The naira’s flotation and $10 billion subsidy savings, per PwC, are steps forward; execution must be relentless.

Nigeria’s 50% GDP drop is a jolt, not a death knell. Its $1 trillion nominal GDP potential by 2050, per PwC, is within reach if these measures take root. Investors should note: a market of 220 million, with tech growing 30% annually, offers outsized returns despite risks. Policymakers must act—133 million in poverty brook no delay. Nigeria can lead Africa anew, its resilience forged in adversity. The question is not if, but how swiftly, it seizes this moment.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

What is the Role of Bosnia in Strengthening Halal Supply Chains in Europe?

Published

2 months ago

on

March 20, 2025

By

Spread the love

 Hafiz M. Ahmed

Imagine walking into a supermarket in Paris, Berlin, or London, scanning the shelves for halal-certified products. You pick up a pack of chicken, a bottle of olive oil, and a box of cookies, all bearing the halal logo. But have you ever wondered how these products made it to the shelf? Behind every halal-certified item lies a complex supply chain that ensures its authenticity, safety, and compliance with Islamic principles. In Europe, where the demand for halal products is growing rapidly, building a reliable and transparent halal supply chain is no small feat. Enter Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country that has emerged as a key player in strengthening halal supply chains across the continent.

With its deep-rooted Islamic heritage, cutting-edge certification processes, and collaborative approach, Bosnia is setting a new standard for halal integrity in Europe. This article explores Bosnia’s pivotal role in creating a robust halal supply chain, its collaborations with other halal-certified organizations, and why its efforts matter for businesses and consumers alike.

The Growing Demand for Halal Products in Europe

Europe is home to over 25 million Muslims, a number that is expected to grow in the coming years. This demographic shift has fueled a surge in demand for halal products, from food and beverages to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. According to a report by Statista, the European halal food market alone is projected to reach $30 billion by 2025. However, meeting this demand is not without its challenges.

One of the biggest hurdles is ensuring the integrity of the halal supply chain. From farm to fork, every step of the process must adhere to strict halal standards. This includes sourcing halal-certified raw materials, using compliant processing methods, and maintaining transparency throughout the supply chain. For businesses, this requires a high level of coordination and expertise—something that Bosnia has mastered.

Bosnia’s Expertise in Halal Certification: A Foundation for Trust

Bosnia and Herzegovina has long been a leader in the global halal industry, thanks in large part to its Agency for Halal Quality Certification (AHQC). Established in 2007, the AHQC is renowned for its rigorous standards and transparent processes. But Bosnia’s contribution to the halal industry goes beyond certification; it plays a critical role in strengthening halal supply chains across Europe.

Here’s how Bosnia is making a difference:

  1. Setting Rigorous Standards: The AHQC’s certification process is one of the most stringent in the world. It covers every stage of production, from sourcing raw materials to packaging and distribution. This ensures that products bearing the Bosnia Halal Certification logo meet the highest standards of quality and compliance.
  2. Promoting Transparency: Transparency is at the heart of Bosnia’s approach to halal certification. The AHQC requires detailed documentation and conducts regular audits to ensure ongoing compliance. This level of transparency builds trust among consumers and businesses alike.
  3. Leveraging Technology: Bosnia is at the forefront of using technology to enhance halal supply chains. From blockchain to track and trace systems, the country is leveraging innovative solutions to ensure the integrity of halal products.

Collaborations: The Key to a Stronger Halal Supply Chain

Bosnia’s success in strengthening halal supply chains is not a solo effort. It is the result of strategic collaborations with other halal-certified organizations, businesses, and government bodies across Europe. These partnerships have been instrumental in creating a more reliable and transparent halal ecosystem.

  1. Partnerships with Halal-Certified Businesses: Bosnia works closely with businesses that are committed to halal integrity. By providing them with certification and guidance, the AHQC helps these companies navigate the complexities of the halal supply chain.
  2. Collaborations with International Halal Organizations: Bosnia is an active member of global halal organizations such as the AHAC – Association of halal Crttifiers. These collaborations ensure that Bosnia’s standards align with international best practices.
  3. Government Support: The Bosnian government has been a strong advocate for the halal industry, providing funding and support for initiatives that promote halal integrity. This has enabled the AHQC to expand its reach and impact.
  4. Educational Initiatives: Bosnia is also investing in education and training to raise awareness about halal standards. Through workshops, seminars, and publications, the AHQC is helping to build a more informed and skilled workforce.

Bosnia’s Impact on the European Halal Market

To understand the real-world impact of Bosnia’s efforts, let’s look at a case study. In 2020, a major European supermarket chain partnered with the AHQC to source halal-certified poultry products. The collaboration involved:

  • Sourcing: The AHQC worked with farmers and suppliers to ensure that the poultry was raised and processed in accordance with halal standards.
  • Certification: The AHQC certified the entire supply chain, from the farm to the supermarket shelf.
  • Transparency: The supermarket chain used blockchain technology to provide consumers with real-time information about the product’s journey.

The result? A 20% increase in sales of halal-certified poultry products within six months. This success story highlights the tangible benefits of Bosnia’s approach to halal supply chain management.

Why Bosnia’s Role Matters for Europe

Bosnia’s contributions to the halal industry have far-reaching implications for Europe. Here’s why:

  1. Consumer Confidence: By ensuring the integrity of halal supply chains, Bosnia is helping to build consumer confidence in halal-certified products. This is crucial in a market where trust is paramount.
  2. Economic Growth: The halal industry is a significant driver of economic growth. By strengthening halal supply chains, Bosnia is creating new opportunities for businesses and boosting the European economy.
  3. Cultural Integration: The halal industry plays a vital role in promoting cultural integration. By providing high-quality halal products, Bosnia is helping to meet the needs of Europe’s diverse population.
  4. Global Leadership: Bosnia’s expertise in halal certification and supply chain management positions it as a global leader in the industry. This not only enhances its reputation but also sets a benchmark for other countries to follow.

Challenges and the Way Forward

While Bosnia has made significant strides in strengthening halal supply chains, challenges remain. These include:

  • Standardization: Despite Bosnia’s efforts, there is still a lack of uniformity in halal standards across Europe. This can create confusion for businesses and consumers.
  • Fraud and Mislabeling: The rise of counterfeit halal products is a growing concern. Bosnia is addressing this issue through stricter regulations and advanced tracking technologies.
  • Awareness: Many consumers and businesses are still unaware of the importance of halal certification. Bosnia is tackling this through educational initiatives and outreach programs.

Looking ahead, Bosnia’s focus will be on fostering greater collaboration, leveraging technology, and raising awareness about halal standards. By doing so, it aims to create a more robust and transparent halal supply chain that benefits everyone.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has emerged as a beacon of reliability and transparency in the European halal industry. Through its rigorous standards, innovative solutions, and collaborative approach, the country is playing a pivotal role in strengthening halal supply chains across the continent. For businesses, this means access to a growing market and a trusted partner in halal certification. For consumers, it means peace of mind knowing that the products they purchase meet the highest standards of quality and authenticity.

As the demand for halal products continues to rise, Bosnia’s contributions will become even more significant. By setting a benchmark for integrity and excellence, Bosnia is not only shaping the future of the halal industry in Europe but also inspiring the world to follow suit.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum