The Age of Megathreats

Summary:

There is a sharply rising risk not only of war among great powers but of a nuclear conflict.

A variety of megathreats is imperiling our future – not just our jobs, incomes, wealth, and the global economy, but also the relative peace, prosperity, and progress achieved over the past 75 years. For four decades after World War II, climate change and job-displacing artificial intelligence was not on anyone's mind, and terms like "deglobalization" and "trade war" were on nobody's lips. Global pandemics weren't even an afterthought – the last major one was in 1918. After the 1970s détente between the United States and the Soviet Union and the opening of the US to China, the already low risk of a conventional or nuclear war between great powers fizzled out.

Growth was robust, economic cycles were contained, and recessions were short and shallow, except for during the stagflationary 1970s; and even then, there were no debt crises in advanced economies, because private and public debt ratios were low. There was no implicit debt from pensions and health-care systems as the supply of young workers was growing while aging was moderate. Sound regulation and capital controls subdued boom-bust cycles and kept major financial crises at bay. The major economies were strong liberal democracies that were free of extreme partisan polarization. Populism and authoritarianism were confined to a benighted cohort of poorer countries.

Fast-forward to late 2022, and you will immediately notice that we are awash in new, extreme megathreats that were not previously on anyone's radar. The world has entered what I call a geopolitical depression, with (at least) four dangerous revisionist powers – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – challenging the economic, financial, security, and geopolitical order that the US and its allies created after WWII.

There is a sharply rising risk not only of war among great powers but of a nuclear conflict. In the coming year, Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine could escalate into an unconventional conflict that directly involves NATO. And Israel – and perhaps the US – may decide to launch strikes against Iran, which is on its way to building a nuclear bomb.

With Chinese President Xi Jinping further consolidating his authoritarian rule, and with the US tightening its trade restrictions against China, the new Sino-American cold war is becoming colder by the day. Worse, it could all too easily turn hot over the status of Taiwan, which Xi is committed to reuniting with the mainland, and which US President Joe Biden is apparently committed to defending. Meanwhile, nuclear-armed North Korea has once again been seeking attention by firing rockets over Japan and South Korea.

Even discounting the threat of a nuclear conflict, the risk of an environmental apocalypse in the future is becoming increasingly serious, especially given that most of the talk about net-zero and ESG (environment, social, and governance) investing is just greenwashing – or greenwishing. The new greenflation is already in full swing, because it turns out that amassing the metals needed for the energy transition requires a lot of expensive energy.

There is also a growing risk of new pandemics that would be even worse than biblical plagues, owing to the link between environmental destruction and zoonotic diseases. Wildlife that carry dangerous pathogens are coming into closer and more frequent contact with humans and livestock. That is why we have already experienced more frequent and virulent pandemics and epidemics (HIV, SARS, MERS, swine flu, bird flu, Zika, Ebola, COVID-19) since the early 1980s. All the evidence suggests that this problem will become even worse in the future.

The economic situation is no better. For the first time since the 1970s, we are facing high inflation and the prospect of a recession – stagflation. And when it comes, the recession will not be short and shallow but long and severe, because we may also be facing the mother of all debt crises, owing to soaring private and public debt ratios over the last few decades. Low debt ratios spared us from that outcome in the 1970s. And though we certainly had debt crises following the 2008 crash – the result of excessive household, bank, and government debt – we also had deflation. It was a demand shock and a credit crunch that could be met with massive monetary, fiscal, and credit easing.

Today, we are experiencing the worst elements of both the 1970s and 2008. Multiple, persistent negative supply shocks have coincided with debt ratios that are even higher than they were during the global financial crisis. As inflationary pressures force central banks to tighten monetary policy even though a recession looms, the costs of debt service will skyrocket. And aging also implies massive unfunded public-sector liabilities – for pensions and health-care benefits – that are as large as the explicit public debt. Everyone should be preparing for what may come to be remembered as the Great Stagflationary Debt Crisis.

Then again, while central banks have been at pains to sound more hawkish, we should be skeptical of their professed willingness to fight inflation at any cost. Once they find themselves in a debt trap, they will have to blink. With debt ratios so high, fighting inflation will cause an economic and financial crash that will be deemed politically unacceptable. Major central banks will feel as though they have no choice but to backpedal, and inflation, the debasement of fiat currencies, boom-bust cycles, and financial crises will become even more severe and frequent, leading to monetary and financial chaos.

At the same time, geopolitical conflicts and national-security concerns will continue to fuel trade, financial, and technology wars, accelerating the deglobalization process. The return of protectionism, and the Sino-American decoupling, will leave the global economy, supply chains, and markets more fragmented, making a wide range of goods and services more expensive. "Friend-shoring" and "secure and fair trade" have replaced offshoring and free trade, respectively.

Over time, advances in AI, robotics, and automation will destroy more and more jobs, even if policymakers build higher protectionist walls in an effort to fight the last war. By restricting immigration and demanding more domestic production, aging advanced economies will create a stronger incentive for companies to adopt labor-saving technologies, which can increasingly perform not just routine but also cognitive and creative work. Even Homo sapiens may eventually become obsolete.

These megathreats will contribute further to rising income and wealth inequality, which has already been putting severe pressure on liberal democracies (as those left behind revolt against elites), and fueling the rise of radical and aggressive populist regimes around the world.

Part of the reason we have come to this dangerous point is that we have long kept our heads stuck in the sand. Now, we need to make up for lost time. Without decisive government and private-sector action both domestically and globally, the period ahead will be less like the four decades after WWII than like the three decades between 1914 and 1945. What started with World War I and the influenza pandemic gave way to the 1929 Wall Street crash and the Great Depression, to massive trade and currency wars, to inflation, hyperinflation, and deflation, and to financial and debt crises that led to massive meltdowns and defaults. Ultimately, authoritarian militarist regimes emerged in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and elsewhere, culminating in WWII and the Holocaust.

If we are not poised for a similar sequence of disasters, it may be because it has already begun.

Source: ZAWYA

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Comments

Add to Favorites

Kevin Du

Energy

In recent weeks, several members of the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero (GFANZ) – a group of 450 financial institutions – have quit over concerns about the cost of delivering on their climate commitments. In dropping out, they have given the lie to the notion that private financial institutions can lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. What the transition really needs is more ambitious states that will go beyond market-fixing to become market shapers.

The market-led approach is rooted in the belief that private financial institutions allocate capital more effectively than anyone else. The implication is that states should refrain from "picking winners" or "distorting" market competition, and confine themselves to "de-risking" green investment opportunities to make them more appealing to mainstream private investors.

But modern economic history tells a different story. In many places and on many occasions, it is public actors that have taken the lead in shaping and creating markets that then deliver benefits for both the private sector and society more broadly. Many major technological breakthroughs that we now take for granted happened only because public entities made investments that the private sector found too risky.

The real story is thus quite different from the prevailing myth. We owe many economic successes not to public actors that got out of the way, but to an "entrepreneurial state" that took the lead. Moreover, the market-led approach is at odds with the goal of delivering a just global green transition in which the costs and risks are shared fairly within and between countries. "De-risking" assumes a strategy that socializes costs and privatizes profits.

Private finance still has a crucial role to play, of course. But only the public sector can mobilize and coordinate investment on the scale required to decarbonize the global economy. The question, then, is what this approach should include.

First, states should embrace their roles as "investors of first resort," rather than waiting to step in only as "lenders of last resort." Around the world, public financial institutions deploy many billions of dollars each year, and, owing to their distinct design and governance structures, they can supply the kind of long-term, patient, and mission-oriented finance that the private sector is often unwilling to provide. The evidence shows that direct lending from well-governed public banks can play a powerful market-shaping role by informing perceptions of future investment opportunities.

Second, we must rethink the relationship between the public and private sector, especially when it comes to sharing risks and rewards. When public entities take risks to achieve societal goals, the private sector should not appropriate the financial rewards.

For example, if a government is funding major renewable-energy projects and other green investments, it could take an equity stake in them. Returns can also be socialized by assigning a proportion of intellectual-property (IP) rights to the state, allowing profits to be re-invested in new green projects. Importantly, firms benefiting from public finance should be subject to conditions that align their business activities with green industrial-policy objectives, fair labor practices, and other priorities.

Third, to direct private investment to green activities, and to curtail investment in harmful ones, states must strengthen and update the rules governing financial markets. Such a regime could include central banks introducing allocative green credit policies, and regulators strengthening rules and standards to prevent greenwashing and regulatory arbitrage.

Fourth, policymakers should recognize that debt finance – whether provided by the public or the private sector – is not necessarily a substitute for direct fiscal spending. The logic of repayable financial instruments is not easily reconciled with the public-good features of some climate-related investments. Investments in climate justice and reforestation will yield far-reaching returns, but not necessarily of the kind that can be used to repay a loan. Navigating these issues and delivering investment at the necessary scale will require strategic coordination across all areas of social, environmental, fiscal, monetary, and industrial policymaking.

Finally, more must be done to provide sufficient fiscal space for countries in the Global South to pursue their own domestic decarbonization and adaptation agendas. Many countries, including those that are most exposed to accelerated climate breakdown, are facing significant debt overhangs. It is now imperative that Global North debtor countries – which are responsible for most of the emissions in the atmosphere – help to reduce these burdens through debt write-offs, debt restructuring, loss-and-damage compensation, or by replacing climate loans with climate grants.

To limit catastrophic global warming, the funding for climate mitigation and adaptation must be scaled up dramatically. But the quality of the financing also matters. Rather than holding out hope that private financial institutions will translate their highly publicized trillion-dollar net-zero pledges into credible, accountable action, we should demand that states assume their proper role. That means mobilizing and directing finance toward clear and ambitious climate goals, and shaping financial markets to align with those goals. Closing the financing gap requires a radical redesign of the financial architecture and a substantive shift in financial flows. Neither will happen without policy interventions.

Source: Khaleej Times

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Comments

Add to Favorites

Devin

Energy

It may not be on the official agenda at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, but the thorny question of whether African nations should receive financial support to produce, use and export natural gas as part of a clean energy transition is on everyone's lips.

Climate campaigners have pitched themselves against African governments that believe they should be allowed to use gas - which emits less climate-heating carbon dioxide than coal and oil when burned - to develop their economies and provide power to 600 million Africans who still lack access to electricity.

Activists raised the alarm last month when Tarek El Molla, Egypt's minister of petroleum and mineral resources, told a ministerial meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) that fossil gas is "the perfect solution" to "achieving the energy trilemma for security, sustainability and affordability".

GECF member countries - which include Algeria, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea and Mozambique - agreed that COP27 and next year's COP in the United Arab Emirates, also in the GECF, present "a great opportunity" to make the case for gas in the energy transition and efforts to meet global development goals.

But advocates for renewables are calling for no more investment in gas - especially in new infrastructure that would facilitate its export to European countries, which have been seeking fresh supplies since committing to cut their use of gas from Russia by two-thirds this year after it invaded Ukraine.

The International Energy Agency has said investors should not fund new oil, gas and coal supply projects if the world wants to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century, as required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to keep global warming "well below" 2 degrees Celsius and ideally to 1.5C.

Mohamed Adow, director of Nairobi-based think tank Power Shift Africa, told journalists at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday that Europe is seeking to make Africa its "gas station", while failing to provide adequate funding to boost renewable energy such as solar.

"We can't let Africa - that has missed all the fossil fuel-powered industrialisation - now become a victim because of the short-sighted selfish colonialist interests of particularly Europe," he said.

European countries, including Germany and Italy, have been criticised by climate activists this year for encouraging governments such as Senegal, Nigeria and Mozambique - behind closed doors - to develop and export their fossil gas reserves, in what is often dubbed a "dash for gas".

'Transition fuel'

Their efforts seem to have fallen on receptive ears, with Senegalese President Macky Sall in a July speech welcoming growing international support for developing gas resources in Africa as part of the continent's energy transition.

Days before, the European Parliament had backed new European Union rules labelling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly.

Later in July, the African Union (AU) and other pan-African institutions adopted a common position on energy access and just transition that said Africa would continue to deploy all forms of its "abundant energy resources including renewable and non-renewable energy to address energy demand".

"Natural gas, green and low-carbon hydrogen and nuclear energy will therefore be expected to play a crucial role in expanding modern energy access in the short to medium term while enhancing the uptake of renewables in the long term," it added.

Gas-rich Nigeria, for example - where about four in 10 people live without electricity - has made clear in its Energy Transition Plan that it will need to boost the use of gas for power production and cleaner cooking until 2030 while also developing solar and hydrogen.

The plan says natural gas is a "transition fuel" on Nigeria's path to net-zero emissions by 2060 and projects gas consumption will grow by about 25% from a 2019 baseline by 2030.

It also projects growth in oil and gas refining through to mid-century but says greenhouse gas emissions from refining activities can be offset, or abated, by applying "Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage" (CCUS) - technology used to stop emissions escaping into the atmosphere.

'Greenwashing' gas?

Activists such as Lorraine Chiponda, co-lead of the "Don't Gas Africa" campaign, have branded promises to abate emissions from the extraction and use of fossil gas as a "false solution" - and an attempt by the industry at "greenwashing gas".

"Our governments must not fall into a trap of developing new gas infrastructure in Europe or Africa, which will continue to harm communities and enrich big polluters while winding up as stranded assets," she told a briefing at COP27 on Monday.

John Kerry, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, said last month at an event in London, that gas - including in Africa - "will be part of this (green) energy transition for sure if managed correctly and effectively".

Switching to gas from coal and oil can provide an immediate reduction in climate-heating emissions of 30%, he noted.

But, he added, building new gas infrastructure - which would last for 30 to 40 years - would only be a realistic option if it included ways to capture the emissions.

Even then, it might not be cost-competitive with cleaner alternatives such as green hydrogen, Kerry added, warning of the risk of stranded gas assets.

Funding Shortfall

Vikram Singh, of the U.S.-based Rocky Mountain Institute, said his nonprofit's research showed the battle to limit global warming to 1.5C "will be won or lost in the Global South".

Renewables are the best solution to provide electricity to rural communities in Africa, he said, adding that the continent is home to 60% of the world's solar resources, which have so far been little used.

"It's really a shame that it's not being leveraged more when it's proving to be a cheaper, more effective and scalable approach to energy access (than fossil fuels)," he added.

Only 16 out of 54 African states have significant gas reserves, he said, with 60% of those reserves held in four countries - Algeria, Angola, Nigeria and Mozambique.

Those governments, together with Senegal, will push behind the scenes at COP27 for access from donors to preferential financial support to exploit those resources, he added.

Meanwhile, energy and development experts say wealthy nations are not delivering climate finance to expand renewables on a scale that would allow Africa to leapfrog fossil fuels.

Donor governments believe the answer may lie in "just energy transition partnerships" (JETPs) of the kind they are putting together for some countries that rely heavily on fossil fuels.

South Africa won the first such $8.5 billion deal at last year's COP26 summit to wean itself off coal.

But discussions on a JETP for Senegal have floundered over the role of gas in its future energy mix, observers say, with Britain insisting support cannot be used to expand fossil fuels.

Nigeria, meanwhile is on the hunt for an initial $10 billion for its energy transition.

But its environment minister said last month that African governments would push at COP27 for a "softening of the conditions" to access climate finance, noting that many Nigerians' livelihoods still depend on its fossil fuel-heavy energy mix.

Bogolo Kenewendo, Africa director and special advisor to the U.N. Climate Change High-Level Champions Team, said African nations had started talking about a green development pathway.

"That green development pathway will not happen if financing for dirtier industries is still nine times more than financing for greener industries - and while the continent only still attracts 3% of climate financing," she said ahead of COP27.

Source: Reuters

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Comments

Add to Favorites

Kevin Du

Energy

The U.N. climate conference taking place in Egypt until Nov. 18 has much to discuss, from financing the transition to clean energy to protecting the world's forests and future-proofing cities.

Here are some of the most-watched topics on the agenda in the sun-baked resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Fossil Fuels and Backsliding

Countries at last year's COP26 talks agreed for the first time to "phase down" coal production and trim other fossil fuel subsidies. Voluntary side deals also touted plans to curb fossil fuel financing and to limit planet-warming methane emissions, chiefly from the fossil fuel and agriculture industries.

But the energy disruption caused by war in Europe has led several European Union members to reopen or extend coal plants' life and to lock in liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. Meanwhile, China continues to approve new coal mines, and Vietnam and Indonesia seek to boost coal production.

The backsliding by major economies on their promises to shift from fossil fuels has led some nations, especially in Africa, to call for a formal recognition that they should be allowed to develop their fossil fuel reserves.

The United Arab Emirates, a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and host of next year's COP28 talks, has said it will be "a responsible supplier" of oil and gas for as long as the world needs.

Paying Up for The Damage

As host of COP27, Egypt has made the issue of "loss and damage," or compensation for losses from climate-related disasters, a focus.

Following a breakthrough at the weekend as this year's summit began, the issue for the first time is part of the U.N. talks' formal agenda.

Wealthy countries have resisted creating a funding mechanism that could suggest liability for historic climate damages, but developing countries are united in demanding that a Loss and Damage fund be established.

The United States and the European Union have shown more openness to having a serious discussion, but remain wary of creating a fund, especially as they face domestic pressure to deal with economic weakness and a cost-of-living crisis caused by high energy prices.

Adapting To a Warmer World

High-income countries have yet to meet their pledge to deliver $100 billion a year in climate finance. Only $80 billion per year was delivered in 2019. Nevertheless, the talks will address boosting that annual goal upward from $100 billion from 2025.

To date, about a quarter of that financing has gone to projects for adapting communities for a warmer world.

Low-income and climate-vulnerable countries want to ensure that the share spent on adaptation is doubled by 2025 - a pledge made at last year's U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland.

That's still shy of what experts say is needed: a report by the U.N. Trade and Development office estimates adaptation costs in developing countries will total $300 billion in 2030.

'Fundamental reform' of development banks?

High-level voices have called for an overhaul of international financial institutions. At the annual World Bank meetings last month, the United States and Germany called for "a fundamental reform" of the bank to respond to challenges including climate change on a global scale, rather than country by country.

Some reformers are asking for more grants and concessional loans that would prevent lower- and middle-income countries from having to pay high interest rates.

U.S. Special Envoy John Kerry said in a speech last month that reforms would be crucial to "address the crisis of this moment," and that there were proposals that could "unlock several hundred billion dollars in additional MDB [multinational development bank] lending capacity without requiring new shareholder capital" and without risking credit rating downgrades.

Keeping 1.5 Alive

At COP26, countries promised to "revisit and strengthen" their national climate plans, called Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, by the end of this year to ensure they are aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of preventing warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

But last month's U.N. "synthesis report" on NDCs submitted this year show that only 24 countries out of 194 have updated their plans.

There may be some new momentum in Egypt. Australia's new government strengthened its pledge to cut emissions 43% by 2030, a significant improvement from its 2015 target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. Chile, Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam are also expected to announce new plans.

Meanwhile, Brazil's election of Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva as president on Sunday bolsters global efforts to end deforestation.

Source: Reuters

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Comments

Add to Favorites

King Ten

Energy

Whether the Full Storage of Natural Gas into Winter Can Be Sustained

The accumulation of natural gas in Europe led to negative gas prices, partly due to the credit of the US. Previously, the United States signed an energy cooperation agreement with the EU, committing to give the EU an additional 15 billion cubic meters of LNG in 2022. Facts have proved that the US has indeed exceeded its promises and basically filled the vacancy of Russian gas.

Besides, Europe was taking precautions at that time and actively adopting energy substitution on the demand side. Most countries announced the resumption of coal power to accelerate the demand substitution. At the same time, Europe also encouraged domestic enterprises, residents, organizations, and business activities in Europe to save energy and control natural gas demand in 2022 at the lowest point in recent years. Coupled with the coincidence of the off-season of natural gas demand in the past few months, it has led to the accumulation phenomenon we have seen. So can this be sustained?

Let's look at a series of statistics. Till March of next year, the consumption of natural gas accounts for more than 55% of the year. The demand is expected to get a boost. The vast majority of European Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) supplies come from the United States, Qatar, and Russia, which together account for 70% of total imports. However, Russia accounts for about 20% of this, and considering pipelines, Russia accounts for 48% of the total EU natural gas imports. If the Russian natural gas supply continues to be completely cut off, the gap will be about 80 billion cubic meters.

Between January and October 2022, the EU imported about 48 billion cubic meters of LNG from the US, more than double the volume imported in all of 2021. However, the US can hardly provide more marginal increments. Even if Europe reduces demand by all means, there is still a large gap between supply and demand. This indicates that the subsequent European inventory will enter a stage of accelerated de-industrialization.

Beware of the Energy Crisis Escalating Again

The overall structure of Europe’s energy is still dominated by fossil energy. In the primary energy consumption structure, oil and natural gas account for as much as 59%. However, Europe's domestic oil and gas are highly dependent on imports, and its foreign dependence is as high as more than 90%, which is at a disadvantage in the energy security game. Judging from the economic performance of Europe in 2021, the energy security issue, with natural gas supply as its core, has become a critical variable affecting European economic stability. There are three vital factors that should be aware of.

The first is the complete cut-off of Russian gas. Since the beginning of November, Russia's last major pipeline (Velke Kapusany) has also been almost cut off, which means that the small amount of supply of Russian gas in the past few months will also be shut down completely. The damage this has done to Europe's energy supply is enormous.

The second is the marginal reduction of U.S. LNG supply. The exports of the U.S. LNG have been marginally decreasing in recent months, and inventories remain at historically low levels. Meanwhile, the supply of the US is beginning to tighten as well, especially as the demand for self-heating increases in winter. It cannot be forgotten to mention that the United States is still the largest energy consumer, so the probability of a decrease in exports is greatly increased.

Finally, whether the global economy can recover and whether demand can return, especially the demand of China. In early October, China began stopping reselling LNG to Europe, in order to meet domestic winter demand. If China's economy recovers and demand gradually increases, the international LNG market may face tougher competition, as China is the world's third-largest natural gas consumer and importer.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Comments

Add to Favorites

Devin

Energy

Maha El Hamed and her family can no longer afford to buy bottled water when the taps run dry - a regular occurrence in her refugee camp in northern Lebanon.

"When we don't have tap water, we rely on the nearest pond," the Syrian said as she sat beside the hospital bed of her seriously ill 4-year-old son - victim of a cholera outbreak that is bringing more misery to crisis-hit Lebanon.

In just one month, the outbreak has spread throughout the country of six million, infecting nearly 2,000 people and killing 17, according to the latest health ministry data.

Lebanon had been cholera-free since 1993, but its public services are suffering under a brutal economic crisis now in its fourth year, while infighting among the country's faction-riven elite has paralysed its governing institutions.

Cholera, a diarrhoeal disease spread by ingestion of food or water tainted with human faeces, can kill within hours if untreated, with children most at risk.

El Hamed, whose son needed resuscitation when he was admitted to Al-Rassi Governmental Hospital in Akkar district last week, said she was praying he would recover - and dreading going home to the same dire situation.

"We will have to return to drinking the same infectious water that brought us here," the 34-year-old Syrian told the Thomson Reuters Foundation as she waited at the hospital for doctors to update her on her son's condition.

Contaminated

The U.N. children's agency UNICEF says cash-strapped refugees and Lebanese families are being forced to rely on contaminated water sources due to inadequate piped supplies and the rising cost of private alternatives.

Access to sufficient supplies of clean tap water has become patchy as distribution systems fail - partly due to widespread power cuts that bring pumping stations and purification plants to a standstill, according to UNICEF.

"We're suffering from the chronic inability to deliver clean water and electricity to homes and camps. This leads to more problems with sewage treatment and disposal," said Ghassan Dbaibo, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research at the American University of Beirut Medical Center.

Like many people in Lebanon, El Hamed is suspicious about the safety of the tap water - even when it does flow, preferring to buy bottled water for drinking and cooking instead.

But soaring inflation has seen the price of bottled water increase by three to five times over the past year, putting it out of reach of many people in Lebanon, where 80% of the population now lives in poverty.

El Hamed said her husband's pay as a construction worker could no longer stretch to bottled water, forcing them to drink the "filthy" tap water.

For their other water needs, such as washing and laundry, El Hamed's family and their neighbours share tankers of filtered water from private suppliers, but that is also becoming increasingly expensive - leaving the pond as their only option.

The cholera outbreak could also put further strain on short-staffed and underfunded healthcare facilities.

At the Al-Rassi hospital, director Muhammad Khadrin said some cholera patients required emergency treatment, potentially causing a shortage of beds.

"We're trying to expand the department to be able to handle more cases, but the situation today is very difficult, and we don't know to what extent the ministry will be able to afford the expansion," he said.

The World Health Organization's representative in Lebanon, Abdinasir Abubakar, said he feared the worst was yet to come in the cholera outbreak despite the entity's efforts to supply clean water and sanitation kits.

Syria Outbreak

Government officials think the cholera cases stem from an outbreak in neighbouring Syria.

Syria's Health Ministry declared a cholera outbreak in Aleppo in September, reporting nine deaths. The cases are thought to be related to individuals drinking contaminated water from the Euphrates River, the United Nations said.

Lebanon's outbreak risks fuelling hostility towards the roughly 1.5 million refugees Syrian refugees who have sought refuge in Lebanon during their nation's 11-year war, according to the Samir Kassir Foundation (SKF), a Beirut-based freedom of expression nonprofit and a funding partner of the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

"In October, when cholera first appeared in Lebanon, we saw an increase in hate speech directed at Syrians," said Widad Jarbouh, a researcher at the SKF.

Around the world, conflicts and natural disasters have resulted in an unprecedented rise in cholera outbreaks globally, the WHO said last month, prompting moves to ration vaccine supplies.

Lebanon received its first batch of vaccines earlier this month. The vaccines will play "an essential role" in limiting the disease's spread, Health Minister Firass Abiad told a news conference.

A spokesperson for the Ministry said that so far, the vaccines would be given to frontline healthcare workers with the rest destined for families living in high-risk areas, including the northern towns where health authorities have set up an emergency field hospital.

There are also concerns that cholera could reach the country's overcrowded and squalid prisons.

"The outbreak is still ahead of us," said the WHO's Abubakar.

Source: Reuters

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Comments

Add to Favorites

Thomas

Political

Here is some advice for anyone following Tuesday's U.S. midterm elections: Be ready for a long night and maybe days of waiting before it's clear whether Republicans or President Joe Biden's Democrats will control Congress.

All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are 35 U.S. Senate seats and 36 governorships.

Republicans would need to pick up five seats to take a majority in the House and just one to control the Senate. Nonpartisan election forecasters and opinion polls suggest Republicans have a very strong chance of winning a House majority, a result that could become clear Tuesday evening, with control of the Senate likely to be closer fought and likely to take longer to be resolved.

A massive wave of Republican support could lead to declarations of victory hours after polls close.

But with dozens of races expected to be close and key states like Pennsylvania already warning it could take days to count every ballot, experts say there's a good chance America goes to bed on election night without knowing who won.

"When it comes to knowing the results, we should move away from talking about Election Day and think instead about election week," said Nathan Gonzales, who publishes the nonpartisan newsletter Inside Elections.

Blue Mirage, Red Mirage

The earliest vote tallies will be skewed by how quickly states count mail ballots.

Because Democrats vote by mail more often than Republicans, states that let officials get an early jump on counting mail ballots could report big Democratic leads early on that evaporate as vote counters work through piles of Republican-leaning ballots that were cast on election day.

In these "blue mirage" states - which include Florida and North Carolina - election officials are allowed to remove mail ballots from their envelopes before Election Day and load them in vote counting machines, allowing for speedy counting.

States including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin don't allow officials to open the envelopes until Election Day, leading to a possible "red mirage" in which Republican-leaning Election Day ballots are reported earlier, with many Democratic-leaning mail ballots counted later.

Experts like Joe Lenski, co-founder of Edison Research, which will be tracking hundreds of races on Tuesday and supplying Reuters and other media organizations with results, will keep an eye on the mix of different types of ballots each state is counting throughout the night.

"Blue mirage, red mirage, whatever. You just have to look at what types of votes are getting reported to know where you are in that state," said Lenski.

So, when do we know which party won?

The first wave of vote tallies is expected on the East Coast between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. ET (0000-0100 GMT Wednesday, Nov. 9). An early indication of Republican success could come if the races expected to be close - like Virginia's 7th congressional district or a U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina - turn out to be Democratic routs.

By around 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. ET, when polls in the Midwest will be closed for an hour or more, it's possible Republicans will have enough momentum for experts at U.S. media organizations to project control of the House, said Kyle Kondik, a political analyst at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

If the fight for the House still looks close as vote tallies start coming in from the West Coast - where there could be more than a dozen tight House races - it could be days before control of the chamber is known, experts said.

California typically takes weeks to count all its ballots, in part because it counts ballots postmarked by Election Day even if they arrive days afterward. Nevada and Washington state also allow late ballots if postmarked by Nov. 8, slowing down the march to final results.

"If the House is really on the edge, that would matter," said Kondik.

It may take longer, perhaps weeks longer, to know which party will control the Senate, with close contests in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia likely to determine final control.

If Georgia's Senate race is as close as expected and no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a run-off election would be scheduled for Dec. 6, possibly meaning it will be unclear who will control the chamber until then. The new Congress is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 3, 2023.