Essential The Africa the Media Doesn't Tell You About

[Red Shield]

Tanzania to revive US$30B LNG project


April 12, 2021

The newly sworn-in Tanzania President Samia Suluhu Hassan is set to revive the long-stalled US$30B liquefied natural gas LNG project in Lindi, Tanzania.

The project was sidelined under the administration of the former President, the late John Pombe Magufuli with his administration instead prioritising the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline to take oil from Uganda to the Tanzanian port of Tanga.


Link:
Tanzania to revive US$30B LNG project

Wonder why Magufuli shelved this

 

[Yehuda]

Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

Madlen Davies | Rosa Furneaux | 19 Apr 2021

Pfizer has backed down over its controversial demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal. ( Photo by Vincent Kalut / Photonews via Getty Images)

Pfizer has backed down over its controversial demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead.

On Wednesday, South African Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, voiced frustrations about “difficult and sometimes unreasonable” terms his country’s government had been presented with during contract negotiations with vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer.

In a briefing letter sent ahead of his appearance at the parliamentary health committee, Mkhize said one condition in particular demanded by Pfizer was “too risky” — that the country put up sovereign assets as potential collateral.

Internationally Pfizer wanted indemnity

In its negotiations to provide vaccines to countries worldwide, Pfizer has asked governments for wide-ranging indemnity protection against any civil claims a citizen might file.

This means that if Pfizer were to be sued by someone who had suffered a rare adverse effect from the vaccine, then the government, not the company, would have to pay for legal costs and compensation. This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice.

In other negotiations, Pfizer went further. The company required some Latin American governments to put up sovereign assets, including federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases — as a guarantee against indemnifying the cost of future legal cases. This was reported by the Bureau in February and picked up by more than 25 media organisations worldwide.

Pfizer told the Bureau: “Pfizer and BioNTech have no intention of interfering with any country’s diplomatic, military, or culturally significant assets.”

Unredacted draft contracts between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic, Albania and Peru show that the company sought to be indemnified against problems at any step of the supply chain — including packaging, manufacturing and storage. Experts told the Bureau it was “unreasonable” to require governments to pick up the bill for any negligence by Pfizer.

In South Africa’s case, Mkhize said the clauses “posed a potential risk to our assets and fiscus [public purse]”. He described how Pfizer’s late demand caused delays in the discussions, which in turn put back the anticipated vaccine-delivery dates.

Mkhize wrote that the government was “relieved” when Pfizer eventually conceded and removed the “problematic term”. He added: “As the government, we found ourselves in a precarious position of having to choose between saving our citizens’ lives and risking putting the country’s assets into private companies’ hands.”

A level playing field

Experts have raised concerns that Pfizer and some other big pharma companies have demanded complete confidentiality during the recent vaccine negotiations, which would prevent the public from knowing about issues including indemnity protection and price. In South Africa, there are fears that any such secrecy clauses could undo public trust built up by years of anti-corruption work.

“I think it is important that this [sovereign assets] clause has been taken out,” said Georg Neumann of the not-for-profit organisation Open Contracting Partnership.

“When contracts are negotiated in secret, companies have the power to dictate the terms. And I think what we’re seeing here is that transparency — when contracts with other countries have been made public — has improved that balance and created a bit more of a level playing field.”

A contract for 30-million doses of Pfizer vaccine has now been signed at $10 a dose. Nearly two million doses are scheduled to arrive in South Africa in May and 2.5-million in June. The government has made down payments in its deals with Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, which are not refundable under any circumstance.

“This is another onerous term that we had to concede as manufacturers were not prepared for it to be removed,” Mkhize wrote.

Yousuf Vawda, a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s law school, said: “While Pfizer appears to have dropped its demand on sovereign assets, it has still insisted on the indemnity and no-fault compensation commitments … Such conduct must be condemned in the strongest terms, as they are holding governments to ransom and delaying the rollout of vaccination.”

More talk as Covid-19 tally rises

Pfizer told the Bureau: “Pfizer and BioNTech seek the same kind of indemnity and liability protections they have in the US in all of the countries that have asked to purchase our vaccine, consistent with the applicable local laws.

“In markets that do not have the legal or legislative protections that are available in the US, we work with governments to find mutually agreeable solutions, including contractual indemnity clauses.”

The delayed Pfizer deal arrives as South Africa is facing a third wave of Covid-19. In total, the country has recorded nearly 1.6-million cases and more than 53 000 deaths.

Its response has been complicated because current vaccines appear to be less effective against the dominant variant circulating in the country. Less than a quarter of the country’s 1.2-million frontline health workers have been vaccinated, using doses donated by Johnson & Johnson. However, its roll-out has been suspended to investigate a potential link to blood clots. South Africa decided to sell or donate 1.5-million doses of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine when a small study suggested the jab might not adequately prevent mild or moderate illnesses in patients with the country’s dominant variant.

Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

 

[loyola llothta]

Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

Madlen Davies | Rosa Furneaux | 19 Apr 2021

Pfizer has backed down over its controversial demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal. ( Photo by Vincent Kalut / Photonews via Getty Images)

Pfizer has backed down over its controversial demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead.

On Wednesday, South African Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, voiced frustrations about “difficult and sometimes unreasonable” terms his country’s government had been presented with during contract negotiations with vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer.

In a briefing letter sent ahead of his appearance at the parliamentary health committee, Mkhize said one condition in particular demanded by Pfizer was “too risky” — that the country put up sovereign assets as potential collateral.

Internationally Pfizer wanted indemnity

In its negotiations to provide vaccines to countries worldwide, Pfizer has asked governments for wide-ranging indemnity protection against any civil claims a citizen might file.

This means that if Pfizer were to be sued by someone who had suffered a rare adverse effect from the vaccine, then the government, not the company, would have to pay for legal costs and compensation. This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice.

In other negotiations, Pfizer went further. The company required some Latin American governments to put up sovereign assets, including federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases — as a guarantee against indemnifying the cost of future legal cases. This was reported by the Bureau in February and picked up by more than 25 media organisations worldwide.

Pfizer told the Bureau: “Pfizer and BioNTech have no intention of interfering with any country’s diplomatic, military, or culturally significant assets.”

Unredacted draft contracts between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic, Albania and Peru show that the company sought to be indemnified against problems at any step of the supply chain — including packaging, manufacturing and storage. Experts told the Bureau it was “unreasonable” to require governments to pick up the bill for any negligence by Pfizer.

In South Africa’s case, Mkhize said the clauses “posed a potential risk to our assets and fiscus [public purse]”. He described how Pfizer’s late demand caused delays in the discussions, which in turn put back the anticipated vaccine-delivery dates.

Mkhize wrote that the government was “relieved” when Pfizer eventually conceded and removed the “problematic term”. He added: “As the government, we found ourselves in a precarious position of having to choose between saving our citizens’ lives and risking putting the country’s assets into private companies’ hands.”

A level playing field

Experts have raised concerns that Pfizer and some other big pharma companies have demanded complete confidentiality during the recent vaccine negotiations, which would prevent the public from knowing about issues including indemnity protection and price. In South Africa, there are fears that any such secrecy clauses could undo public trust built up by years of anti-corruption work.

“I think it is important that this [sovereign assets] clause has been taken out,” said Georg Neumann of the not-for-profit organisation Open Contracting Partnership.

“When contracts are negotiated in secret, companies have the power to dictate the terms. And I think what we’re seeing here is that transparency — when contracts with other countries have been made public — has improved that balance and created a bit more of a level playing field.”

A contract for 30-million doses of Pfizer vaccine has now been signed at $10 a dose. Nearly two million doses are scheduled to arrive in South Africa in May and 2.5-million in June. The government has made down payments in its deals with Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, which are not refundable under any circumstance.

“This is another onerous term that we had to concede as manufacturers were not prepared for it to be removed,” Mkhize wrote.

Yousuf Vawda, a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s law school, said: “While Pfizer appears to have dropped its demand on sovereign assets, it has still insisted on the indemnity and no-fault compensation commitments … Such conduct must be condemned in the strongest terms, as they are holding governments to ransom and delaying the rollout of vaccination.”

More talk as Covid-19 tally rises

Pfizer told the Bureau: “Pfizer and BioNTech seek the same kind of indemnity and liability protections they have in the US in all of the countries that have asked to purchase our vaccine, consistent with the applicable local laws.

“In markets that do not have the legal or legislative protections that are available in the US, we work with governments to find mutually agreeable solutions, including contractual indemnity clauses.”

The delayed Pfizer deal arrives as South Africa is facing a third wave of Covid-19. In total, the country has recorded nearly 1.6-million cases and more than 53 000 deaths.

Its response has been complicated because current vaccines appear to be less effective against the dominant variant circulating in the country. Less than a quarter of the country’s 1.2-million frontline health workers have been vaccinated, using doses donated by Johnson & Johnson. However, its roll-out has been suspended to investigate a potential link to blood clots. South Africa decided to sell or donate 1.5-million doses of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine when a small study suggested the jab might not adequately prevent mild or moderate illnesses in patients with the country’s dominant variant.

Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

Fuk out of here did these cacs lose they mind

 

[loyola llothta]

#SouthAfrica | Massive injection of capital from #China into African economies is hastening the realization of the continent's transformation agenda and pandemic recovery, experts said on Thursday.



Chinese Investment Spurs Africa's Transformation Agenda: Expert
telesurenglish.net

 

[loyola llothta]

20 April 2021

Pentagon Adds Africa to Global Battleground with China and Russia
By Rick Rozoff



General Stephen Townsend, commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), and General Kenneth McKenzie,commander of U.S. Central Command, are scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 22. The testimony, both open and closed, will address the proposed 2022 National Defense Authorization Act which is reported to include a total of $753 billion for the Pentagon’s operations around the world.

The last time AFRICOM’s Townsend addressed that committee was in January of last year, when he spoke in depth of his command’s, and more broadly the U.S.’s overall, strategy toward Africa.

Commanders of the six geographical unified combatant commands the Pentagon employs to divide up the world – Africa Command, Central Command, European Command, Indo-Pacific Command, Northern Command and Southern Command – are duty-bound to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee and its equivalent in the House of Representatives to solicit funding and so must give an account of themselves and their commands. (General Townsend also appeared before the House Armed Services Committee in March of 2020 with Central Command’s General McKenzie in a hearing on National Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Greater Middle East and Africa.)

In his testimony last yearTownsend’s comments not only laid out AFRICOM’s perspective and plans for the world’s second-most populous continent but prefigured what has become the U.S.’s central global strategy, which is now coming fully into its own with the Biden-Harris administration: that the U.S. is in competition with – in fact is in conflict with – China and Russia, individually and jointly, in every part of the world. From Africa to the Arctic, from Europe to South America, from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region. And in most every category, military and civilian. Trade and finance, ownership of foreign debt, mineral and other resources, energy and energy transit, port and rail and road construction projects, foreign investments in the private and public sectors, diplomatic relations with the other nations of the world, control of shipping lanes and maritime choke points, international arms sales, military training of other nations’ armed forces, communications and cyber security, democracy and human rights and their alleged subversion, information (ours) and disinformation (theirs), almost ad infinitum.

Townsend identified three security threats in Africa, to Africa itself and to the U.S. and its allies and, grandiosely, the world: in his order, China, Russia and violent extremist organizations (VEOs) of the al-Shabaab and other varieties the U.S. has been waging war and counterinsurgency war against in Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Congo (Kinshasa), South Sudan, Uganda and elsewhere over the past twenty years. However, now the emphasis has been shifted away from those wars as, in the commander’s words, AFRICOM “must orient the bulk of our efforts against China and Russia even as we counter VEOs that threaten America.”

His comments, excerpts of which appear below, have recently been echoed by European Command commander General Tod Wolters(who is also NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe),Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg inter alia in regard to what Washington and its military and political allies in Europe and elsewhere have collectively identified as the global challenge of China and Russia.

Townsend’s presentation last year, in a section called Africa and National Security, contained unadulterated geopolitics that evoke the writings of Halford Mackinder in defining Africa as a global crossroads where “Africa watches over strategic choke points and sea lines of communication, including the Mediterranean Sea and the Strait of Gibraltar on NATO’s southern flank, the Red Sea and the Bab al Mandeb strait, and the Mozambique Channel.”

The reference to NATO’s southern flank is neither fortuitous nor peripheral.


As every country in Europe except Russia (and the tiny island nation of Cyprus) is a NATO member or partner, and as every North African country except Libya (for the moment) is a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership, Africa is now NATO’s southern flank as Russia is its eastern one; by NATO’s expansion toward both locations.

The waterways mentioned above, he added, are essential to the functioning of not only AFRICOM but all U.S. unified combabant commands throughout the world and are vital to “African, U.S., and global prosperity.”

He immediately moved on to a discussion of Global Power Competition, which begins with this paragraph:

“China and Russia have long recognized the strategic and economic importance of Africa, and continue to seize opportunities to expand their influence across the continent. The National Defense Strategy directs us to prioritize great power competition with China and Russia due to the ‘magnitude of the threats they post to U.S. security and prosperity today and the potential for those threats to increase in the future.’”

Again, the threats supposedly presented by China and Russia – inevitably coupled – to Africa (and to the world in Africa) are inseparable from the alleged threat the duo poses to the U.S. and its allies and partners in every other part of the world. Referred to as “malign actors,” China and Russia were accused of “coercive and exploitative activities” which “undermine and threaten” the stability of African nations.

Anyone familiar with the history of Africa over the past five hundred years would have to be astonished by that claim. That Washington, which has not only coerced and exploited most of Africa since the end of World War II and played a hand in several violent coups and wars, direct (as that against Libya a decade ago) and proxy, would accuse China and Russia in the above regard is beyond presumption. Beyond reason. Perhaps beyond sanity.

The commander went on to accuse China of disguising military penetration of Africa behind the construction of ports (“These Chinese seaports are not genuine commercial ports”) and other infrastructure projects, specifically in Djibouti where China established a naval base four years ago. Elsewhere Townsend spoke of there being 6,000 U.S. in Africa at any given time, half of those at the Pentagon’s Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti where the U.S. has been for twenty years. He evidently saw no contradiction in his statements.

That the commander of AFRICOM, whose area of responsibility includes all of Africa’s 54 nations except for Egypt (which remains in that of U.S. Central Command), would accuse China of posing a military threat to Africa and the world by opening a small naval base in minuscule Djibouti (population: 973,000) is beyond any sensible person’s ability to comprehend.

He also castigated China and Russia for selling arms to African nations, with Russia reportedly being the largest arms dealer, not mentioning that Russia, as successor state to the Soviet Union, inherited military relations with nations from Egypt to Angola and Ethiopia among dozens of others on the continent. One of the purposes of inaugurating AFRICOM in 2008 was to dominate – monopolize – the arms trade there with the sales of “NATO interoperable” weaponry.

In general, in an exercise that goes beyond mere irony, Townsend declared “it is clear that China prioritizes Africa and Russia sees an opportunity to gain a strong position on NATO’s southern flank.”

As Russia is encroaching on NATO’s eastern flank simply by remaining where it is.

Regarding NATO and Africa, before the beginning of its post-Cold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe NATO’s members included every European colonial, imperial and settler nation in Africa over the last half-millennium: Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey.

Townsend didn’t neglect any part of the contingent in conjuring up the China-Russia threat. North Africa, where Russia “continues to harvest benefits from the instability in Libya,” the Horn of Africa with China in Djibouti and the rest of Africa as well: “China and Russia are in a position of advantage in central and southern Africa. Russia is testing its playbook for malign activity in the Central African Republic.” In Mozambique, Russia is doubly villainous in “provid[ing] second-rate counterterrorism assistance in the hopes of buying oil and gas concessions.”

The AFRICOM chief summed up Pentagon concerns over Africa – and by implication every other part of the globe – in declaring that “longterm global power competition with China and Russia and the need to limit the harmful influence of malign actors in the region is of utmost importance.”

Because “if the U.S. steps back from Africa” – and Europe and the Middle East and Central Asia and Southern Asia and East Asia and the South Pacific and the rest of Oceania and South and Central America and the Arctic and the Antarctic, but these areas aren’t in AFRICOM’s area of responsibility – “too far, China and Russia will fill the void to our detriment.”

link:
Pentagon adds Africa to global battleground with China and Russia

 

[Sinnerman]

 

[loyola llothta]

Mmmmm

 

[Yehuda]

In his January 27 “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” US President Joseph Biden declares that his administration aims at “putting the climate crisis at the center of United States foreign policy and National Security.”

(...) By implication, Biden’s executive orders make the release of CO2 in any corner of the world into a US national security issue. The forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate would provide the basis for using the resources of the US intelligence community and national security apparatus to enforce administration climate policies on a global scale.

That has ominous implications. The construction of a new highway, pipeline, factory or power plant in a developing country, which might lead to increased CO2 emissions, could in principle be classified as a threat to US national security.

Depending on the case, the US administration would thereby feel justified or even compelled to stop such projects. Green imperialism thus becomes a duty of the US government. One should consider the magnitude of the interventions and conflicts which may result. (...)

Climate would thus provide the Biden administration with an argument to pursue Donald Trump’s protectionist aims with other means. As Biden put it during his campaign: “Countries that fail to meet their climate responsibilities won’t be allowed to erode global progress with cheap, carbon-dirty goods.” A hard line against “carbon-dirty goods” would thus be a way to “protect American jobs.”

But there is much more in the toolbox. Climate goals provide ample justification for strong interventions into the domestic politics of nations, including support for selected parties, social movements and NGOs. (...)

The executive order directs the departmental secretaries at State, Treasury and Energy as well as leaders of other government agencies, in consultation with the assistant to the president for national security affairs, “to identify steps through which the United States can promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy.”

Biden has made it clear that China is the number one target of his climate-leveraged foreign policy. China has over 250 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power now in development, with 97 GW already under construction. The 250 GW total is roughly equivalent to the entire coal power capacity of the US, which Biden has pledged to shut down.

During the electoral campaign, Biden declared: “I will lead a diplomatic initiative to get every nation to go beyond their initial commitment” to reducing CO2 emissions. “This is especially true for China, by far the world’s largest emitter of carbon. We will not only hold their leaders accountable for reducing carbon output at home, in their country but make sure they stop financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel projects all across Asia.”

It is true that many of the projects sponsored by China in the context of its Belt and Road Initiative involve the construction of fossil fuel power plants and fossil fuel infrastructure.

Chinese banks are presently the main source of financing for coal power plants worldwide, with Chinese financing and Chinese companies involved in at least 240 coal projects, including in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Tanzania, and Zambia.

The simple fact is that developing countries need energy and they are expanding their fossil fuel infrastructure accordingly. This can be seen clearly from the construction of oil and gas pipelines.

India has over 21,000 kilometers of pipelines in planning or construction, African countries have over 33,000 kilometers and Latin America over 13,000 kilometers. The pipelines now in pre-construction or under construction in the Asia-Pacific region (including China) have a total length equal to twice the equator of the Earth.

Will the US under Biden attempt to stop these projects in the name of saving the climate? (...)

Taking on the role of a climate policy “enforcer” will bring the Biden administration into conflict with the interests of many countries.

Nearly all Middle East nations live on exports of oil. Among the other countries that depend on fossil fuels for more than 50% of their export earnings are Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Nigeria, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

Scores of other developing countries earn significant amounts from fossil fuel exports, and many have fossil fuel reserves that are counted on as part of their national wealth. The International Monetary Fund report “Unburnable Wealth of Nations” explores this issue.

Biden eyes new era of green imperialism

 

[phcitywarrior]

Biden eyes new era of green imperialism

I talked to my dad who’s in the energy market in Nigeria about this.

USA coming through to block economic progress

Who didn’t see this coming.

I interned at a clean energy firm back in college and although they’re great concerning “green energy”, for developing countries they don’t produce enough energy to truly empower their people.

Expect more of this global government in the coming years. Covid is just the start...

 

[Yehuda]

I talked to my dad who’s in the energy market in Nigeria about this.

USA coming through to block economic progress

Who didn’t see this coming.

I interned at a clean energy firm back in college and although they’re great concerning “green energy”, for developing countries they don’t produce enough energy to truly empower their people.

Expect more of this global government in the coming years. Covid is just the start...

I was going through dude's series of articles regarding this, apparently they don't produce enough energy for anyone at all and are even more costly than nuclear energy. shyt is crazy:

(...) Due to the erratic variations in wind strength, the average output of an onshore wind turbine is generally only about a third of its maximum rated capacity (the figure is about 38% for an offshore turbine). About 2000 typical-size 1.5 megawatt wind turbines are needed to generate as much average electric power as a standard one-gigawatt nuclear power plant. Unlike wind turbines, nuclear plants generate a constant, controllable flow of electricity.

To obtain a dependable supply based on wind and solar, supplementary electricity sources are needed to step in when their output drops. That costs money. In most present-day practice – where fossil fuels have not yet been banned – this is done mainly with the help of auxiliary gas turbines, diesel generators or – when nuclear plants are available – by “load-following” that constantly adjusts nuclear plant outputs. Load-following can work as long as the ratio of nuclear to wind-plus-solar is large enough.

Otherwise, the only alternative is to import electricity from somewhere else, assuming it is available when you need it, or to store part of the output of wind and solar sources and inject stored electricity back into the grid when their output falls. The most-cited option is to use batteries – a lot of them.

The second basic problem is the low power density of wind and solar energy. Aside from hurricanes and tornadoes, wind is a diffuse form of energy that requires large areas to “harvest” it. The same applies to sunlight on the surface of the Earth.

Compared to nuclear plants or state-of-the-art fossil fuel plants, wind and solar require hundreds of times as many individual units, hundreds of times more land area and tens of times larger amounts of steel, concrete and other materials to produce a given average power output.

The figure below illustrates what low power density means: a 260-meter tall 12 MW GE Haliade X offshore wind turbine, compared with the size of a nuclear power plant – in this case an advanced-generation reactor being developed by the ThorCon company for Indonesia.

GE’s Heliade X is two-thirds the height of the Empire State Building, or half the height of the former World Trade Center! But for a nominal rating of 12 megawatts, we will be lucky to get 5 MW average output – a hundredth of the output of the “tiny” nuclear power plant at the right.

That’s similar for land use. Michael Shellenberger, a staunch environmentalist who has become an outspoken advocate of nuclear energy, compared the land area required for a given level of power production by typical nuclear plants, wind farms and solar parks in various countries.

For example, the nuclear plant in Borsella, Netherlands, occupies about .16 square kilometers of land and produces 3.46 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, while Holland’s Gemini Offshore Wind Farm occupies 68 square kilometers and produces 2.6 billion kilowatt-hours. The nuclear plant produces 570 times more power per unit area than the wind farm – and 370 times more than the solar park Sunport Delfzijl.

In South Korea the factor was 625 times for nuclear versus onshore wind and 468 times for nuclear versus solar. Figures in the nine other countries examined are analogous.

Note also that wind turbines degrade the quality of life of people unfortunate enough to live in the vicinity. Ironically, irrational environmentalism has caused an unprecedented scale of destruction of the natural landscape.

This has given a new meaning to the term blowback. In Germany, the resistance of local populations has brought the expansion of wind energy to a standstill. Large solar parks are not popular, either.

There is no question that wind and solar power are mature technologies, that have an important role to play as complementary energy sources in specific contexts. But as far as the economics of large-scale use is concerned, the lobby of commercial interests linked to wind and solar energy – which is now much larger than the nuclear lobby ever was – has done everything possible to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

We are constantly told that the cost of wind and solar energy has dropped dramatically and that they are already the cheapest power sources.

Common sense, and the electricity prices in California, Germany, and Denmark – which have all gone big on renewable energy – tell a different story, as do many independent studies. See for example the detailed study by Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh, “Wind Power Economics – Rhetoric & Reality.”

The real costs of wind and solar are obscured by subsidized prices, renewable energy credits, production tax credits, green bond discounts, accelerated depreciation, property tax exemptions and tax credits.

Wind and solar reliance would black out the US

 

[phcitywarrior]

I was going through dude's series of articles regarding this, apparently they don't produce enough energy for anyone at all and are even more costly than nuclear energy. shyt is crazy:



Wind and solar reliance would black out the US

The thing about green energy is this: yes, it’s “good for the planet” but pound for pound, fossil fuels generate more power.

The Indias, Nigerias and Ethiopias of the world can’t industrialize using wind, solar or hydro at their current capacity.

I see this as moving the goal posts.

Green Energy is going to be the next bargaining chip.

 

[Yehuda]

Chad: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same?

23 APRIL 2021
By Andrew Korybko

The reported killing of long-serving Chadian leader Idriss Deby at the hands of his country's latest rebel group and subsequent imposition of a military transitional government were thought by some to herald long-overdue change in this geostrategically pivotal state, yet it might very well be that nothing will end up changing all that much since such a scenario could result in France losing control of one of its top regional allies if that happens.

Deby's Death

Observers were shocked after learning that long-serving Chadian leader Idriss Deby was killed at the hands of his country's latest rebel group. Some even suspected that foul play might have been involved, with one of the most prominent theories speculating that it was an inside job by rogue members of the military who attempted to pull off an armed coup. Regardless of whatever might have really happened, the fact of the matter is that Chad experienced a sudden regime change instead of the “phased leadership transition” that usually occurs in “national democracies” such as this one which don't employ Western models of governance. What's most controversial about the immediate consequences of this unexpected development is that the armed forces suspended the constitution, established an 18-month military transitional government, and appointed the president's son Mahamat “Kaka” Idriss Deby Itno as leader in a move condemned by some as an unconstitutional coup and possibly indicative of a power struggle among the inner military elite.

High Hopes

Nevertheless, some observers expressed hope that these moves might herald long-overdue change in this geostrategically pivotal state, perhaps resulting in a more Western form of governance in partnership with the leading “Front for Change and Concord in Chad” (FACT by its French acronym) rebel group and others when all's said and done similar in a sense to the precedent that's gradually unfolding in neighboring Sudan. Others think that the new military government might soon fall if FACT is able to successfully take the capital of N'Djamena in the coming future like it's promised to do, inspired by Deby's death and incensed by what they described as the “dynastic devolution of power” in the country. Those hopes, however well intended they may be, are probably premature and much too high when considering that such scenarios could result in France losing control of one of its top regional allies if that happens. The casual observer probably doesn't know much about their historical patron-proxy relations, so some background reading is required.

Anti-Terrorism Or Neo-Imperialism?

France justifies its patron-proxy relationship with Chad on the basis of shared anti-terrorist concerns, the latter of which veritably exist and are legitimate to a large extent but are nevertheless exploited for neo-imperialist purposes. Despite being oil rich, the country consistently ranks near the absolute bottom of the Human Development Index and is regarded as one of the most destitute places on the planet. This is attributable to rampant corruption, which the military is also suspected of participating in. France turns a blind eye to these practices despite publicly supporting “accountability and transparency among all” abroad because it conveniently enables it to maintain its proxy network among the country's powerful armed forces, which in turn helps advance its regional goals, most recently in Mali. For all of its governing faults, Chad objectively has one of Africa's most powerful militaries, which explains why former President Deby's government had yet to fall to rebels despite coming close on several occasions. France airstrikes at critical moments also helped too.

Scenario Forecasting

It remains to be seen whether the Chadian National Armed Forces (FANT by their French acronym) can stem FACT's week-long blitzkrieg towards the capital from their Libyan base, but if they can't, then it's very likely that France will intervene once again to save its struggling proxies. In the unlikely event that Paris doesn't do so, then it might stand to lose enormous regional influence if the revolutionary authorities espouse any sincere anti-imperialist principles. It's much more likely, however, that the military transitional government will remain in power and overcome the speculative differences between some of its factions. In that event, France might either go along with the possibility of its proxy potentially rigging elections to ensure “Kaka's” victory if he isn't able to win through legitimate means or it might flexibly adapt to changing circumstances to guide Chad's incipient democracy through an unseen hand in the direction of its strategic interests. The only wild card is whether the Chadian people can successfully employ a grassroots-driven Color Revolution to stop this.

Concluding Thoughts

Chad is a very diverse and highly impoverished country in spite of its rich resource wealth, and it's pretty much only been held together by a tight fist since independence, whether that was most recently Deby or his several predecessors. It's quite typical of many African countries in this respect, which means that the onset of sudden instability such as the capital's fall to rebel forces who might potentially be opposed in principle to continuing the country's present course in foreign affairs (i.e. retaining the patron-proxy neo-imperialist relationship with France) or a successful Color Revolution inspired by Deby's death could catalyze far-reaching and largely unpredictable consequences in the worst-case scenario. France is unlikely to sit back and lose one of its top allies in Africa which is why it's predicted that Paris might soon militarily intervene in support of FANT should the need arise, and if need be, clandestinely “manage” (i.e. hijack) Chad's incipient democracy.

Chad: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same?

 

[Sinnerman]

The thing about green energy is this: yes, it’s “good for the planet” but pound for pound, fossil fuels generate more power.

The Indias, Nigerias and Ethiopias of the world can’t industrialize using wind, solar or hydro at their current capacity.

I see this as moving the goal posts.

Green Energy is going to be the next bargaining chip.

Yep

I talked to my dad who’s in the energy market in Nigeria about this.

USA coming through to block economic progress

Who didn’t see this coming.

I interned at a clean energy firm back in college and although they’re great concerning “green energy”, for developing countries they don’t produce enough energy to truly empower their people.

Expect more of this global government in the coming years. Covid is just the start...

Seems like the Biden presidency is going to start pivoting to Africa

 

[Red Shield]

Yep



Seems like the Biden presidency is going to start pivoting to Africa

USA is gonna overextend itself at this point if it hasn't already

 

[Yehuda]

Civil society groups in Chad set to protest French-backed military takeover

Following the death of long-time president Idriss Déby, his son, Mahamat Déby, seized power on April 20 at the head of a military junta. Opposition parties have called for a civil disobedience campaign

April 26, 2021 by Pavan Kulkarni

Idriss Déby. Photo : Rama via Wikimedia Commons

Civil society groups and activists in Chad have called for protests on Tuesday, April 27, demanding the dissolution of the military junta which has assumed the power after Idriss Déby died on April 20 in the fighting between government and rebel forces. Deby was the president of the country from 1990 when he seized power in a French-backed coup.

At his state funeral on Friday, April 23, French president Emmanuel Macron reassured his diplomatic and military backing for the 37-year-old General Mahamat Déby, son of Idriss Déby. Mahamat, who was the directorate-general of the Security Services of State Institutions (DGSSIE) including the presidential guard, now heads the military junta.

However, opposition is building up. “We, the Chadian artist-members of the platform, ‘In the name of respect’, demand the non-involvement of the French policy of double standards in the management of Chadian affairs,” Chadian artist Djigri Parterre, said at a press conference on Sunday, April 25. “We say no to the monarchization of Chad by France.”

The head of the Chadian League of Human Rights, Max Loalngar, said, “We place ourselves under the protection of the African Union and the United Nations and ask that mechanisms be urgently set into motion to ensure the protection of citizens, to take charge of the process of comprehensive and inclusive dialogue to build a consensual transition and to create the conditions that guarantee a lasting political handover.”

He went on to call on “the Chadian population all over the country to take to the streets on Tuesday for a public demonstration,” insisting that “we will stay on the streets if we are not listened to.”

Chad’s constitution provides that the speaker of the national parliament must take charge in the event of death of the president for a transitional period of 45 to 90 days. During this period, an election must be held and power transferred to the newly elected president. This constitution has been suspended.

All state power now rests in a committee which comprises Mahamat Déby and 14 other generals he reportedly handpicked from among his father’s loyalists. This military junta will rule the country for a period of 18 months, within which, the army’s spokesperson said, “free and fair elections” will be held. The parliament and the government has been dissolved. Borders have been shut since and a nightly curfew has been imposed.

Many residents in the capital city, N’Djamena, reportedly fled eastwards towards the Cameroon border after the army announced the death of Idriss Déby and the takeover by his son. Panic had set in a day earlier when rumors about the death of Idriss Déby had already begun circulating. Tanks were seen on the streets of the capital, particularly around the presidential palace.

Condemning the seizure of power as an “institutional coup d’etat conducted by the generals,” a dozen opposition leaders held a meeting on April 21 and issued a joint statement against “the monarchist devolution of power.” Opposition parties have called for a civil disobedience campaign. The Union of Syndicates of Chad called for a general strike.

French government’s stake in Déby’s regime

Despite this wide-spread domestic opposition, the French government has extended support to the junta. Justifying the seizure of power by Mahamat, its Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, told France 2 television, “Logically, it should be (speaker Haroun) Kabadi…but he refused because of the exceptional security reasons that were needed to ensure the stability of this country.”

Seated next to President Macron on the front row of the state funeral of Idriss Déby, Mahamat, in his turn, vowed to “stay loyal to the memory” of his father, who, having come to power with French backing, had loyally served the geopolitical ambitions of Chad’s former colonizer.

The three decades of his rule were marked by immiseration of the masses and crackdowns on opposition. The 2019 UN Human Development Index ranks Chad as 187th among the 189 countries and territories compared. Over 66% of the population lived in severe poverty as of 2019.

With little goodwill to count on domestically, military and diplomatic backing from France was a crucial factor behind the survival of Déby’s regime. Under his watch, Chad’s capital city became the center of French military influence in the Sahel region, where 5,100 troops are deployed. The French military base in N’Djamena houses 1,000 of these troops, along with Mirage fighter jets.

This base is the command center of France’s Operation Barkhane which has been ongoing since 2014, with operations in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger — all of which are former French colonies and whose troops participate in these operations as a part of the G-5 Sahel coalition. Having the most powerful army in the region, Chad is an important participant in French military operations in Sahel. N’Djamena also hosts some US military personnel.

A landlocked country sharing borders with Libya, Sudan, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Nigeria and Niger, the geopolitical value placed on Chad by France and other NATO allies, including the US, is very high. This is particularly so after NATO allies overthrew Muammar Gaddafi from Libya with the help of radical Islamic forces, which caused a rise of armed groups in the region.

The rebel force Idriss Déby was fighting, the Front for Change and Concord in Chad — known by its French acronym FACT — is also a product of the unraveling of Libya.

Formed in Libya in 2016 by Mahamat Mahadi Ali — a veteran rebel commander who had spent his exile in France — FACT sided with Khalifa Haftar, who was also backed by France, UK and the US during the Second Libyan Civil War. With a ceasefire agreement reached between the Haftar’s military faction in Libya’s east and the Tripoli-based military coalition in the west in October 2020, the fighting in Libya has de-escalated.

FACT, which is said to have gained possession of considerable military hardware from Haftar, pushed home southwards on 400-450 vehicles on April 11, 2021, capturing some outposts in Northern Chad, reportedly with little or no resistance. Declaring their intention to overthrow Idriss Déby, they headed towards N’Djamena.

Crackdown in the run-up to election

Meanwhile, elections were about to be held in Chad. Earlier, after Déby announced his decision to contest for a sixth term, protests had broken out in many cities and towns. While the term limit he had abolished in 2005 was reintroduced in 2018, the amendments to the constitution allowed him another term until 2023.

Security forces responded to the protests with force, arresting several hundred activists. While the ruling party, Patriotic Salvation Movement (MPS) campaigned freely, crackdowns on campaigns by opposition parties under the garb of containing the COVID-19 pandemic were the norm in the run-up to the election. On several occasions, opposition parties’ offices and residences of its leaders were surrounded by security forces to prevent them from campaigning.

On February 28, security forces forcefully entered the home of opposition leader and presidential candidate, Yaya Dillo from the Socialist Party Without Borders (PSF), killing multiple family members including his 80-year-old mother, in an attempt to arrest him. Several dozen protesters were wounded in the violent crackdown unleashed on peaceful protests in March.

According to Human Rights Watch, during these crackdowns, the security forces “arbitrarily arrested at least 112 opposition party members and supporters and civil society activists, subjecting some to severe beatings and other ill-treatment.”

Eventually, 10 of the 16 candidates were either barred from contesting or chose to pull out of the race, including Saleh Kebzabo of the National Union for Democracy and Renewal (UNDR). The runner-up in the previous presidential election, he was regarded as the main challenger to Idriss Déby in the 2021 election.

Activists called for delaying the election. They alleged that there were no real contestants to choose from, accusing those who had remained in the race of being dummies fielded by the ruling party to give the appearance of a contest. Under such circumstances, the election commission declared Idriss Déby the winner for the sixth consecutive time on April 19.

By then, he had already been wounded, reportedly on April 18. The US withdrew its non-essential diplomatic staff from Chad that day, due to “growing proximity” of FACT’s troops “to N’Djamena, and the possibility for violence in the city.” The UK also withdrew its staff.

According to the communique released by the army on April 20, the 68-year-old president had “led operations in heroic struggles against the terrorist hordes from Libya. Wounded in the struggle, he passed away once returned to N’Djamena.” Many have questioned the veracity of this version.

FACT maintains that Déby was injured when he went to the Karem region, about 280 km up north from N’Djamena, where his troops were combating FACT’s forces over the weekend. The exact circumstances under which he was wounded and the kind of injuries he suffered are yet to be ascertained.

At the crossroads

The rebel forces were said to be only between 200 to 300 km from the capital on April 20, when the army announced his death. In 2006, 2008 and 2019, when N’Djamena was at the risk of falling to the rebels, France had intervened to defend Idriss Déby’s regime.

Whether or not France will yet again undertake a military intervention to defend the new regime is unclear. The Sahel region has witnessed protests against French military deployment in recent times. The French, on the other hand, will strive to ensure that no forces hostile to its interests in the region take over N’Djamena.

A FACT spokesperson told Reuters last week that it does not intend to seize power, but is marching on N’Djamena to “free the people from a system that is undemocratic.” After bombardment of rebel positions by the air force, Chad’s military said on April 24 that it had “annihilated” the rebel forces.

On Sunday, April 25, FACT’s spokesperson told Reuters that it is “ready to observe a ceasefire for a political settlement that respects the independence and sovereignty of Chad and does not endorse a coup d’etat.” Rejecting the offer, the Chadian army has called the FACT as “outlaws” and is preparing for the battles.

The strength of the mobilization in the civil society-led protests on April 27, and the response of the security forces, now operating under direct military rule, will be among the telling indicators of how the balance of political forces might evolve over the coming period.

Civil society groups in Chad set to protest French-backed military takeover