Sometimes we at A.P.R. come across an article in our daily news-scans that just brings things into focus, about major issues. One major issue is the U.S.'s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, which is going badly, like all imperial "adventures" have in that country for the past 3000 years. Ostenstibly started in 2001 to apprehend the perpretrators of the 9/11 attacks, and punish their supporters, the Taleban, it is in it's tenth year now, with no end in sight. Thousands of innocent civilians have died in that country, and hundreds of U.S. troops. We saw this article today (naturally, not in the US corporate media) , and found it very revealing. See what you think...
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/01-6Afghan 'Geological Reserves Worth a Trillion Dollars'
Karzai exclaims 'very good news for Afghans', but perhaps history tells us that regular Afghans should be very cautious of such news
KABUL - Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, is sitting on mineral and petroleum reserves worth an estimated one trillion dollars, President Hamid Karzai said Sunday.
Miners work in the Anyak copper mine in Afghanistan. While Afghanistan is not renowned as a resource-rich country, it has a wide range of deposits, including copper, iron ore, gold and chromite, as well as natural gas, oil and precious and semi-precious stones. (Afghan Government photo)The war-ravaged nation could become one of the richest in the world if helped to tap its geological deposits, Karzai told reporters.
"I have very good news for Afghans," Karzai said.
"The initial figures we have obtained show that our mineral deposits are worth a thousand billion dollars -- not a thousand million dollars but a thousand billion," he said.
He based his assertion, he said, on a survey being carried out by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), due to be completed in "a couple of months".
The USGS, the US government's scientific agency, has been working on the 17-million dollar survey for a number of years, Karzai said.
While Afghanistan is not renowned as a resource-rich country, it has a wide range of deposits, including copper, iron ore, gold and chromite, as well as natural gas, oil and precious and semi-precious stones.
Little has been exploited because the country has been mired in conflict for 30 years, and is embroiled in a vicious insurgency by Islamist rebels led by the Taliban.
More than 100,000 foreign troops under US and NATO command are battling the insurgents, with another 40,000 due for deployment this year.
China and India have bid for contracts to develop mines, with the Chinese winning a copper contract. An iron ore contract is due to be awarded later this year.
In 2007, China's state-owned metals giant Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) signed a three-billion-dollar contract to develop the Aynak copper mine -- one of the world's biggest -- over the next 30 years.
First discovered in 1974, the site, 30 kilometres (20 miles) south of Kabul in Logar, is estimated to contain 11.3 million tonnes of copper.
The Hajigak iron ore mine in Bamiyan province, north of Kabul, is currently under tender, with one Chinese and half a dozen Indian firms bidding.
The contract is for exploitation of almost two billion tonnes of high-grade ore, involving processing, smelting, steel production and electricity production.
© 2010 Agence France-Presse
There were alot of good comments, in the comment section, at the end of the article, on the Commondreams Web-Site. Here are a some of our favourites:
"I suppose the U.S. is in Afghanistan to stabilize what might otherwise be its shaky mineral and petroleum wealth. And that wealth would become unstable if the Chinese took an interest in it."
"Wow, Afghanistan is worth something, imagine that!
Too bad the current residents don't do something with it, you know the world needs cheap copper!
Labor is cheap in Afghanistan, so I imagine U.S. companies are lined up too.
If only the people of Afghanistan had a say, if only the people of the U.S. had a say... how their resources are being stolen."
"Wow, Afghanistan is worth something, imagine that!
Too bad the current residents don't do something with it, you know the world needs cheap copper!
Labor is cheap in Afghanistan, so I imagine U.S. companies are lined up too.
If only the people of Afghanistan had a say, if only the people of the U.S. had a say... how their resources are being stolen."
"i thought imperialists were supposed to make money off their wars. can we do anything right?"
THINKING AHEAD
Another interesting article that came across the A.P.R. laptop the other day, was this. Give it a read, and then we'll provide our analysis.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/31-3Pentagon to Rank Global Warming as Destabilizing Force
US defense review says military planners should factor climate change into long term strategy
by Suzanne Goldenberg
The Pentagon will for the first time rank global warming as a destabilizing force, adding fuel to conflict and putting US troops at risk around the world, in a major strategy review to be presented to Congress tomorrow. The Quadrennial Defense Review, prepared by the Pentagon to update Congress on its security vision, will direct military planners to keep track of the latest climate science, and to factor global warming into their long term strategic planning.
"While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden on civilian institutions and militaries around the world," said a draft of the review seen by the Guardian.
A fisherman in the dried reservoir of Lam Takhong Dam, Thailand, a consequence of global warming.
The Pentagon says climate change does not cause conflict but it could act as an accelerant. Heatwaves and freak storms could put increasing demand on the US military to respond to humanitarian crises or natural disaster. But troops could feel the effects of climate change even more directly, the draft says.
More than 30 US bases are threatened by rising sea levels. It ordered the Pentagon to review the risks posed to installations, and to combat troops by a potential increase in severe heatwaves and fires.
The review's release coincides with a sharpening focus in the American defense establishment about global warming - even though polls last week showed the public increasingly less concerned.
The CIA late last year established a center to collect intelligence on climate change. Earlier this month, CIA officials sent emails to environmental experts in Washington seeking their views on climate change impacts around the world, and how the agency could keep tabs on what actions countries were taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The CIA has also restarted a program - scrapped by George Bush - that allowed scientists and spies to share satellite images of glaciers and Arctic sea ice.
That suggests climate change is here to stay as a topic of concern for the Pentagon.
The Pentagon, in acknowledging the threat of global warming, will now have to factor factor climate change into war game exercises and long-term security assessments of badly affected regions such as the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.
Military planners will have to factor climate change into war game exercises and long-term security assessments of badly affected regions such as the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia..
"The leadership of the Pentagon has very strongly indicated that they do consider climate change to be a national security issue," said Christine Parthemore, an analyst at the Center for A New American Security who has been studying the Pentagon's evolving views on climate change. "They are considering climate change on par with the political and economic factors as the key drivers that are shaping the world."
Awareness of climate change and its impact on threat levels and military capability had been slowly percolating through the ranks since 2008 when then Senators Hillary Clinton and John Warner pushed the Pentagon to look specifically at the impact of global warming in its next long-term review.
But the navy was already alive to the potential threat, with melting sea ice in the Arctic opening up a new security province. The changing chemistry of the oceans, because of global warming, is also playing havoc with submarine sonar, a report last year from the CNAS warned.
US soldiers and marines, meanwhile, were getting a hard lesson in the dangers of energy insecurity on the battlefield, where attacks on supply convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq inflicted heavy casualties.
"Our dependence on fuel adds significant cost and puts US soldiers and contractors at risk," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy Undersecretary of Defense for the Environment. "Energy can be a matter of life and death and we have seen dramatically in Iraq and Afghanistan the cost of heavy reliance on fossil fuels."
She told a conference call on Friday the Pentagon would seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from non-combat operations by 34% from 2008 levels by 2020, in line with similar cuts by the rest of the federal government.
In addition to the threat of global warming, she said the Pentagon was concerned that US military bases in America were vulnerable because of their reliance on the electric grid to cyber attack and overload in case of a natural disaster.
The US air force, in response, has built up America's biggest solar battery array in Nevada, and is testing jet fighter engines on biofuels. The Marine Corps may soon start drilling its own wells to eliminate the need to truck in bottled water in response to recommendations from a task force on reducing energy use in a war zone.
But not all defense department officials have got on board, and Parthemore said she believes it could take some time to truly change the military mindset.
Parthemore writes of an exchange on a Department of Defense list-serv in December 2008 about whether global warming exists. It ends with one official writing: "This is increasingly shrill and pedantic. Moreover, it's becoming boring."
© 2010 Guardian/UK
Again, the first thing to notice about this article, is that it is not from any US corporate media source. Isn't it interesting, that the US military, which is the globe's largest greenhouse-gas emitting single entity (not counting actual countries, but militaries and industrial sectors), is recognising the threast global warming poses to all countries, peoples, and ecosystems? How are all the brownshirts (Teabaggers, Limbaugh/Palin/Beckites) going to fit this into their world-view? Now, if only the US military could be acting to counteract global warming, rather than exacerbating it. Dreams are the beginning of new realities.
OK folks, time to lay it out again. I know we tend to harp alot on climate change. But your lead editor has acquired some expertise in this area, and we feel comfortable in presenting the state-of-the-science research results about it. And the news is not good.
What the latest research is saying, is that the last time the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 390 ppm, which is what it is today (up from 280 ppm 60 years ago), 128,000 years ago, sea levels were 18 to 25 feet (5 to 7 metres) higher than they are today. [higher than most of Florida]
This was due to naturally occurring volcanism, it is thought, and it is unknown how rapidly they rose to this level. But what would this mean, a sea level, that much higher? If it were to occur relatively quickly, say within 20-30 years (or even 10), could humanity adapt? Because all the major seaports and their infrastructure would be underwater, which is where and how the bulk of the global food and energy is distributed. Would all the different countries be able to rebuild all the transport and distribution facilities on higher ground that quickly? If not, shortages of food and energy would cause great hardship, and could lead to societal collapse, in many areas. It's not inconceivable that this rapid of a sea-level rise could occur.
Research is also showing that the Greenland Ice Cap is shrinking rapidly, especially on the coastal margins. And that large areas of it could collapse quite quickly, within a matter of a few years, which could raise sea levels on it's own, by a few metres. Which would quickly drown many areas like Bangladesh, and low-elevation island countries in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Cheers.
