26-11-2021

fRIday, NovemBeR 26, 2021
4
GCC, US united against Iranian threats
Acting Editor & Publisher : Jobaer Alam
e-mail: editor@thebangladeshtoday.com
Friday, November 26, 2021
Timely and efficient
completion of mega projects
The incumbent government has always
been ambitious when it came to
infrastructure development. The Padma
Bridge project as well as the various urban
projects targeted to reduce traffic congestion
clearly indicates the government's willingness to
undertake long term megaprojects.However,
repeated setbacks in multiple infrastructure
projects undertaken have also put a question
mark on the consistency of performance on these
projects.
The Mogbazaar-Malibaghflyover in Dhaka for
example was a glaring example of
mismanagement and faulty design. The
ambitious project had its design changed more
than 122 times. The original design was made for
left hand driven traffic lanes as well as faulty
placement of pillars. Too long delayed and over
budgeted the project was not only causing severe
traffic congestion on surrounding roads. Even
after completion it's efficiency in jam reduction
has also been put to question by experts.
The Dhaka- Chittagong highway was another
black hole. Grossly over budgeted by 62% the
deadline for its completion was delayed twice
resulting in undue cost escalations. Though
completed the overall traffic movement will
exceed the highway's four lane capacity by the
year 2030, the primary reason why the
government is now planning on constructing an
elevated expressway over the completed
highway. The importance of greater and careful
future planning here, is clearly highlighted.
But possibly more annoying has been the
elevated expressway that was planned to connect
Dhaka's northern areas with the south.
Originally budgeted at Tk 8,940 crore (USD 1.124
billion) and planned to be finished by 2014, the
project'svery startup was delayed thrice and as of
recently, seen not much activities. While some
initial works are underway, the project is yet to go
on full swing on part due to the contracted firm's
failure to procure adequate funding.
Bangladesh is, already, a highly populated
country with population density in Dhaka being
one of the highest in the world. As a city already
plagued by overpopulation and congestion, mega
projects being delayed not only results in
solutions to be delayed, but also further
contributes to mass congestion due to traffic
being hampered by construction work.
The situation with the elevated expressway in
particular is precarious. With the very inception
of construction delayed thrice,the project that
was supposed to be over by 2014 has not yet
started its main work. Not only will this push the
project's costs further; it will mean that the delays
in solving this city's traffic problem will be
delayed. Also, when construction does begin in
full swing but lingers on, it will contribute greatly
to further congestion of traffic due to
construction work.
The government therefore, needs to take these
scenarios seriously. These are not short term
projects that can be broken down and renewed.
These are long term projects that will influence
the city's as well as the nation's economic growth
and traffic system. Negligence, lack of
consistency as well as faults in such major, large
scale projects will not only compound future city
management but will put the government's
planning and execution credibility in question.
These projects will form the backbone of our
nation for decades to come. To see them dragging
on hopelessly for years will be highly undesirable.
It will be a waste of valuable resources and time
that a developing nation like ours simply cannot
afford. Therefore, urgent and decisive steps must
be taken in order to address these issues, and
ensure that future megaprojects do not meet
similar bumps.
Senior officials from the Gulf
Cooperation Council and the US
met last week in Riyadh and
agreed on a coordinated approach
toward Iran. The GCC-US Working
Group on Iran was set up in
November 2015 following the Camp
David summit of May 2015, where
President Barack Obama and Gulf
leaders agreed to set up several
working groups to manage different
aspects of the GCC-US strategic
partnership. While the focus of those
working groups was initially on
security and political issues,
subsequent summits and ministerial
meetings expanded the scope to other
matters.
In its meeting last Wednesday, the
GCC-US Working Group on Iran
reaffirmed that long-standing
partnership and expressed "shared
determination to contribute to
regional security and stability."
The meeting addressed three main
issues: Iran's regional activities, its
missile program, and its nuclear
activities.
In a statement issued afterwards,
the group condemned Iran's
"aggressive and dangerous" policies,
including the proliferation and direct
use of ballistic missiles and drones in
hundreds of attacks against civilians
and critical infrastructure in Saudi
Arabia, as well as civilian merchant
seamen in the international waters of
the Sea of Oman and Global Coalition
Against Daesh forces in Iraq and
Syria.
The gathering also discussed
regional issues and agreed that Iran's
support for armed militias across the
Middle East and its nuclear and
ballistic missile programs pose clear
threats to regional security and
stability. The US and GCC states
further agreed to hold subsequent
Earlier this month, the world's
leaders got together to small
talk about the weather and to
big talk about the climate at the 26th
edition of the UN's climate change
conference (COP26) in Glasgow.
On the sidelines, activists (myself
included) campaigned to persuade
governments to replace platitudes
with attitude, inaction with action.
Nevertheless, the hot air and
greenwashing were plentiful, with
delegates with ties to fossil fuel
companies outnumbering even the
largest country delegation.
In the pavilion section,
greenwashing came from the nuclear
industry, representatives of which in
banana suits claimed that living near
nuclear power stations was as safe as
eating a banana, as well as from
major coal producers like Australia,
and major oil producers such as the
Gulf states, each of whom had a
gigantic stand.
In the closing plenary, minister
after minister urged consensus and
collective action for the sake of their
children or grandchildren and the
future of humanity.
However, despite the platitudes,
rich countries, from the United States
to EU states, showed little appetite to
downscale their lifestyles and
emerging economic powerhouses,
such as China and India, exhibited
little willingness to clean up their
reliance on coal and other dirty fossil
fuels.
This left low-income countries and
island states feeling a profound sense
of betrayal. This was eloquently
expressed by Shauna Aminath, the
environment minister of the lowlying
Maldives, which could become
uninhabitable by 2050 and possibly
vanish from the map by the turn of
the century, while its vital coral reef
is dying off at an alarming rate.
"[This is] yet another conversation
where we put our homes on the line,
while those who have other options
decide how quickly they want to act,"
she told her fellow ministers in the
final session of the conference. "The
difference between 1.5 and 2C is a
death sentence for us."
Beyond kicking the hot potato of
meaningful climate action down the
road to mid-century for future
generations to deal with, another
favoured tactic of countries and
corporations is to make vague netzero
emission pledges.
More than 140 countries have
promised to be net zero mostly by
2050, with some countries aiming for
sooner and others for later. China has
dR. aBdel aZIZ alUWaISheG
meetings of this working group to
discuss these threats and other issues
within its terms of reference, which
were adopted in its inaugural meeting
on Nov. 3, 2015, addressing Iran's
conventional and asymmetric threats
against peace and security in the
region.
The US and GCC states agreed that
Iran's nuclear program is of grave
concern, as it has taken steps for
which it has no civilian need. These
steps, such as the production of highly
enriched uranium and enriched
uranium metal, would be important
only for a nuclear weapons program.
They called for Iran to fully cooperate
with the International Atomic Energy
Agency and allow unfettered access
and effective inspections of its nuclear
activities.
The US and GCC member states
affirmed that Iran has a better
alternative to these continued
escalations, which have kept the
region in turmoil for decades. They
called on Iran to change course and
contribute to a more secure and stable
region. Members of the GCC briefed
on their efforts to build effective
diplomatic channels with Iran to
prevent, resolve or de-escalate
conflicts, backed by strong deterrence
and defense cooperation with the US
and other partners. They described a
vision for these regional diplomatic
efforts developing over time to
Khaled dIaB
promote peaceful ties in the region,
based on a long history of economic
and cultural exchanges.
The two sides agreed that Iran's
nuclear program is of grave concern,
as it has taken steps for which it has
no civilian need.
However, those diplomatic efforts
will not succeed if Iran continues to
provoke a nuclear crisis and escalate
regional tensions. The GCC side
stressed that a mutual return by Iran
The US and GCC states agreed that Iran's nuclear program
is of grave concern, as it has taken steps for which it has
no civilian need. These steps, such as the production of
highly enriched uranium and enriched uranium metal,
would be important only for a nuclear weapons program.
and the US to full compliance with the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
should pave the way for greater
efforts toward both better regional
economic relations and a longer and
stronger agreement to ensure that
Iran's nuclear program is exclusively
for peaceful purposes and that the
Gulf region will remain free of nuclear
weapons.
At the end, the two sides welcomed
the upcoming seventh round of
JCPOA negotiations in Vienna and
called for an urgent mutual return to
full compliance with the nuclear deal,
paving the way for inclusive
diplomatic efforts to address all issues
that are necessary to ensure
sustainable safety, security and
prosperity in the region.
The GCC and US urged the Iranian
administration of President Ebrahim
Raisi to seize the current diplomatic
opportunity to choose the right path -
to prevent conflict and crisis and
The 'net zero' myth
set 2060 as its target date and India
is aiming for 2070.
Businesses, from giant
multinationals to local steakhouses
in Glasgow, have also been falling
over themselves to announce netzero
pledges. At least a fifth of the
world's 2,000 largest corporations
had already made such promises
before COP26.
Well, not really. There are indeed a
few countries and companies that
have seriously committed to lowering
their carbon (and ecological)
footprint through an ambitious
strategy to reduce their emissions
and pursue sustainable production
and consumption models.
But, for many, climate strategies
amount to little more than a PR
exercise.
Possibly the most ludicrous netzero
claims are the ones being made
about fossil fuel products. One
flagrant example of this was Shell's
"Drive Carbon Neutral" campaign in
the Netherlands, which claimed that
consumers could offset their petrol
emissions by paying just one euro
cent ($0.012) extra per litre at the
pump.
To my mind, this is akin to a
modern reincarnation of the
indulgences sold by the medieval
church. But, here, instead of
"sinners", polluters pay a token
amount to absolve themselves of guilt
but without making any meaningful
change to their destructive
behaviour.
Although these indulgences may
help Shell executives sleep better at
night and motorists feel less guilty
about their gas-guzzling vehicles, this
stunt does next to nothing for the
climate.
For that reason, the Dutch
advertising standards agency asked
Shell to remove the ad after nine law
students filed a complaint accusing
the oil giant of greenwashing.
Unfortunately, Shell is not alone in
making these preposterous claims.
There is a troubling new trend among
fossil fuel companies of marketing
gas and oil which they claim is carbon
neutral.
A recent investigation we
conducted at Carbon Market Watch
found that such claims currently
being made by oil and gas companies
amount to brazen greenwashing.
To the untrained ear, net zero (also
known as carbon neutrality) sounds
deceptively like zero - and therein lies
the marketing genius behind this
term and its rapidly gaining
popularity. It gives the impression
that emissions will be (largely)
eliminated.
However, while one factor in this
equation relates to cutting down the
level of greenhouse gas emissions,
the other involves so-called
offsetting, i.e. balancing emissions in
one place against reductions in
another.
Offsetting can be achieved through
natural solutions that enhance
nature's carbon absorption capacity
(such as afforestation or restoring
wetlands), investing in renewable
energy elsewhere, by buying
To my mind, this is akin to a modern reincarnation of
the indulgences sold by the medieval church. But, here,
instead of "sinners", polluters pay a token amount to
absolve themselves of guilt but without making any
meaningful change to their destructive behaviour.
someone else's emissions reductions,
or by using largely unproven
technologies in the future to capture
carbon from industrial processes or
the air.
If we were to attempt to offset all
our emissions by planting trees, this
would require at least 1.6 billion
hectares (4 billion acres) of new
forests, Oxfam estimates.
This afforested land would cover
five Indias or more than all the
farmland on the planet. This would
not only lead to mass hunger, it is
impractical and impossible. We
would need a Planet B to offset this
Planet A.
The "net-zero" mantra can distort
reality and present as equal yet wildly
different realities.
For instance, a serious country or
company may have a carbonneutrality
plan which relies on
slashing emissions by 90 percent and
neutralising the remaining 10
percent through offsets. A company
or country looking for easy solutions
or to greenwash its image could aim
for the inverse: 10 percent reductions
and 90 percent offsets.
Even though these two hypothetical
create the basis for enhanced regional
security and prosperity. While the
GCC and US agreed to give the Vienna
talks a chance to succeed, they are
aware of the many pitfalls
surrounding such a proposition.
First, other than general
reconciliatory statements, the new
administration in Tehran has shown
few tangible signs that it is interested
in de-escalation. The Houthis have
gone into overdrive in Yemen, Iranaffiliated
militias have upped their
activities in Iraq, and Hezbollah is
tightening its grip on Lebanon,
driving the country into a complete
meltdown.
Second, there is a fear that Iran will
slow-walk the JCPOA talks, dragging
its feet while it takes additional steps
toward developing a military nuclear
capability, following the North Korea
example of the past.
Third, Iran may use the JCPOA
talks as cover to escalate its malign
regional activities, as happened with
the JCPOA in 2015. Then, it took
advantage of the P5+1's desire to
reach a deal and avoid censuring
Tehran while the talks were ongoing.
Fourth, without an enhanced
monitoring and inspection regime,
Iran's return to the JCPOA would be
meaningless, as there would be no
way of ascertaining its full
compliance.
Aware of these possible hazards, the
GCC-US Working Group on Iran will
continue to monitor progress in the
JCPOA talks, while taking steps to
strengthen GCC defenses in the face
of emerging threats from Iran.
At the same time, the GCC is going
to continue its efforts to de-escalate
the conflict through dialogue and
diplomacy.
Source: Arab news
cases are both theoretically "net zero"
or "carbon neutral", they are not
equivalent nor equal. The first is
about taking meaningful action to
clean up the atmosphere, while the
second is about atmospherics and
cleaning up one's image.
The cover provided by the fig leaf of
net zero allows the unscrupulous to
dress up inaction as determined
action. This helps explain why
emissions on paper can appear to be
falling while in the air, where it really
matters, they continue to rise.
After the temporary blip due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the world is on
course to return to pre-pandemic
emissions levels and, without radical
action, emissions will continue to rise
steadily in the coming years.
In the vital near term, when we
need to massively roll back emissions
this decade if we are to keep global
heating below or near the critical 1.5C
threshold, ambition is severely
wanting.
When totted up, the combined
commitments of world governments
will shave a measly 7.5 percent off
global emissions by 2030 compared
with 2010 levels, according to a UN
assessment of national plans, rather
than the 65 percent scientific
research says is imperative.
To make matters even direr,
governments appear to have been
underreporting their countries'
emissions, partly thanks to creative
"net" accounting that unrealistically
exploits natural carbon sinks.
The gap between actual and
reported global emissions could be as
high as 13.3bn tonnes a year, the
equivalent of the exhaust of nearly 3
billion cars, a new Washington Post
investigation estimates.
What all this reveals is that
reporting net emissions and aiming
for "net zero" is befogging the road
ahead and leading to dangerous
levels of procrastination and
complacency on the part of
governments and corporations.
To properly illuminate the
challenges on the horizon, we must
abandon talk of "net zero" and speak
about emissions and offsets
separately. While offsetting can be
used to compensate for essential and
unavoidable economic activities,
climate action must be
overwhelmingly focused on reining
in real emissions by 65 percent this
decade. What we desperately need
are climate heroes, not greenwashing
zeroes.
Source: Al Jazeera