Hurricanes are only part of Florida’s climate change problem. But more insidious is the impact rising sea levels are having on what has been nicknamed “The Sunshine State.”

Hurricanes are only part of Florida’s climate change problem.

That is not to in anyway minimize the dangers of extreme weather. Hurricane Helene is estimated to cost up to $47.5 billion and 227 lives. Milton, which struck only 22 days later has so far taken 11 lives and left three million people without power.

But more insidious is the impact rising sea levels are having on what has been nicknamed “The Sunshine State.”

One of the most significant consequences of global warming is melting polar ice caps. This is expected to raise sea levels globally by up to three feet by the end of this century. But tides and currents in the Gulf of Mexico mean that the sea levels around Florida could go up by six feet and four feet by the half century mark.

Photo courtesy: NBC News

This means visitors to Miami’s popular South Beach would require snorkels at the very least. In fact Miami as a whole would be in danger as most of it is less than six feet above sea level.

It is not just the beaches that are in danger. The rising sea levels have caused salt water to flood fresh water aquifers. This has affected the state’s drinking water supplies and water needed for agriculture, which, after tourism, is Florida’s biggest industry. The everglades could easily become the saltglades with all the consequential damage to wildlife that such a name change implies.

Florida’s Governor Ron de Santis is a climate change skeptic. He does not believe that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming. But, to give him credit, he does accept the proof of his own eyes that rising sea levels are threatening his paradise state, and he is dealing with it.

Miami’s South Beach, for instance, has invested in a sea wall, pumping stations and elevated roads. The South Florida Water Management District has outlined a $2.5 billion plan to upgrade infrastructure including the installation of pumps and key floodgates. Miami has plans to spend $3.8 billion on storm water management systems.

Courtesy: Global News

Even Disneyworld, which is 20 miles inland, is worried and is implementing an improved drainage system to mitigate flooding risks.

So, the governor is dealing with the consequences of climate change but refuses to acknowledge that burning fossil fuels and other carbon emissions are the cause of the problem which costs him dearly. Nor does he support policies to limit carbon emissions. Environmental regulations, says de Santis, hamper business development and investment. Climatologists, in de Santis-speak, are “gloom and doom” merchants.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene and as Hurricane Milton was threatening, de Santis refused to speak with either President Biden or Kamala Harris about federal help for the evacuation and the hurricanes’ aftermath. He said the president’s efforts to coordinate aid efforts was politicking.

But the Florida governor was not as bad as Donald Trump. He falsely claimed that money set aside for disaster relief had been “stolen” by Biden and Harris to pay for housing “illegal immigrants.” This is despite the fact that the Republican governors of the affected states praised Biden’s fast and efficient response to the hurricanes.

Trump’s lies had real consequences for real people. According to the Mayor of the hard hit North Carolina town of Asheville, some residents believe Trump’s lies and are refusing to accept an emergency no-strings attached $750 government handout for food supplies. This is because they have been told by Trump that they have to pay it back.

Trump’s lies, however, have been topped by Marjorie Greene Taylor’s latest conspiracy theory. According to the Georgia Congresswoman, the government created Hurricane Helene and controlled its path so that it only struck Republican-dominated communities.

World Review

As I sat down to write, French Prime Minister Michele Barnier was making last minute adjustments to his budget before presenting it to the National Assembly.

So, there may be a few unintentional omissions from this piece, but not too many because the problems of the French economy have been widely circulated in advance of the Barnier budget.

On Friday morning Barnier was widely expected to introduce an austerity budget of cuts and higher taxes totaling $66 billion—or two percent of the French GDP. Two-thirds will come in cuts in government spending and one third in tax increases.

The savings will come from a six-month delayed pension increase and $20 billion in cuts to government departments. The newly-appointed Barnier also wants to cut local government subsidies for businesses. To raise money, Barnier plans to introduce a temporary super tax on firms with more than a $1.1 billion turnover and households with earnings over $547,000.

Prime Minister Michele Barnier

The super tax is likely to have no problem in the French legislature. There is very little sympathy in France—or most everywhere else—for the rich. Pensioners are another problem. National Rally leader Marine Le Pen has already accused the government of “stealing from the elderly.” As for government cuts, the devil is in the detail and those details will only become clear in the coming weeks of debate.

It is clear, however, that something must be done to deal with the government deficit which is expected to exceed six percent of GDP in 2024.

President Emmanuel Macron had a reputation as a good money manager. And back in January 2020 he appeared to have the economy under control. Then the pandemic struck. Macron pledged to “protect” the French people “whatever it costs.” Government spending leapt to 59 percent of GDP—more than Germany or Spain or any other OECD country.

As the pandemic eased, Russia invaded Ukraine and the price of oil and grain rapidly rose along with almost every inflation marker. Macron’s economic plans went out the window.

But the parlous state of the French economy is not Barnier’s only problem. He is prime minister of a minority government with France’s left and right wing parties broadly united in their opposition. But not completely, Le Pen’s RN favours cuts in government but not cuts in pension payments.  The left joins them on behalf of pensioners but also opposes any cuts in government spending.

Barnier’s hope is to gain broad support from the Gaullist parties and then play off the left and right over specific aspects of France’s finances.

The budget has to be agreed by December. If Barnier fails to win the support of a majority of the National Assembly then he has the option of using emergency measures to push it through. But that is highly unpopular and could easily lead to the collapse of his government.

____________________

Trump may have broken the law—again. This time the law in question is known as the Logan Act.

The Logan Act was passed in 1799 shortly after the creation of the United States. It makes it illegal for private individuals to conduct diplomacy or negotiations with foreign governments without authorization from the federal government. Breaching it can cost a fine and three years in prison

The law makes sense. The Secretary of State—or any of his officials—don’t want their efforts being contradicted or undermined by an individual negotiating with a different agenda.

According to the latest book by investigative journalist Bob Woodward, Donald Trump spoke with Russian president Vladimir Putin at least seven times since leaving the White House. Of course, they may have just been exchanging recipes or discussing when to send Putin the latest health care products. That, however, seems unlikely given wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

However, there are problems with prosecution. The first is that it appears to conflict with the First Amendment’s free speech provisions. The second is that in 225 years no one has been successfully prosecuted under the Logan Act.

Mind you, there have only been a handful of attempts. The first case was against Pennsylvania state legislator George Logan (after whom the act is named) who engaged in unauthorized negotiations with the French government. Logan was indicted but by the time his case was ready for trial, the diplomatic problems had been resolved by Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana.

The act was dusted off again in 1803 and 1852. But again, the defendants were indicted but never brought to trial. In modern times, Republicans tried to use the Logan Act against Senators George McGovern and John Sparkman, but that effort failed because the senators cleared their visit with the State Department.

So, the inclination is not to put too much hope in the Logan Act. But who knows, maybe it can succeed where other laws appear to be failing.

___________________

Trump has won. On a whole range of issues his demands from the 2016 and 2020 election campaigns feature in Kamala Harris’s literature.

Take tariffs as an example. Trump was the first to moot the question of their imposition. Now Kamala Harris is saying she will put tariffs of up to 25 percent on Chinese goods and services.

Ms. Harris would also keep most of the tax cuts which Trump introduced in 2017 and are up for renewal next year. She has also become a convert to fracking, although the vice president might balk at Trump’s call to “drill, baby, drill.”

On immigration, Kamala wants to shut down asylum applications whenever there is a glut of migrants.

The only domestic issue which seriously divides them is abortion, and even there, Trump is back-pedaling in a desperate search for votes.

Foreign policy is a bit different. Kamala Harris’s diplomacy is built on values and alliances. Trump’s is entirely transaction which means that he deals with other countries on the basis of what that country can do for America. That means worries about NATO with Trump and, of course, Ukraine. On China and the Middle East there is an overlap between Harris and Trump.

Kamala Harris has adopted many of Trump’s 2016 and 2020 policies simply because they are vote winners. Trump, however, feels the need to differentiate himself from the opposition. He has done that by becoming more extreme. Tariffs against Chinese products are now proposed to jump to as much as 100 percent on some products. And during his campaign, Trump’s tariffs on other countries have leapt from 10 to 20 percent. Immigration now involves mass deportation. As for tax cuts, Trump’s mantra is “reduce, reduce, reduce.”

Regardless, the Democrats clearly cherry picked policies which they think will win votes. Their strategy appears to be to narrow the policy differences between the two candidates and accentuate the character differences—a former state attorney general who impressed Joe Biden enough to make her his vice president vs. a misogynistic, racist convicted felon who has a string of indictments hanging over his head.

_____________________

Russia is winning the information war. In fact, President Vladimir Putin would like us to believe that he is warning the actual war in Ukraine war as well.

But the war—like life—is a bit more complicated than that. Russia is clearly advancing. Earlier this month Volodomyr Zelensky was forced to pull his troops out of Vuhledar in order to prevent their encirclement and capture.

A similar fate appears to await Toretsk further to the north. It is more strategic than Vuhledar as it sits atop a hill which dominates the surrounding countryside. Also under threat is Pokrovsk which controls an important road/rail junction.

The problem for the doomsayers is that each inch gained by Russian troops is at an increasing cost in men and materiel. Ukraine’s strategy appears to be to concede as little ground as possible while inflicting as much damage as possible on advancing Russian troops.

Image courtesy: Britannica

According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) over the past year the Russians have suffered casualties of a thousand troops a day. And in the Pokrovsk region alone, they have lost five divisions of tanks and armoured vehicles in the past year.

Despite the pledges of Kim Jong-un, North Korea is failing to provide Putin with the artillery shells he needs, while the Ukrainians’ supply from America and Europe is starting to pick up. A year ago, the Russians were firing ten rounds for every round fired by a Ukrainian howitzer. Now it is 2.5 to every Ukrainian round.

Ukraine has also had success in bombing Russian ammunition dumps and the Russians are having problems dislodging the Ukrainians from Kursk.

But the information (aka propaganda) war is another matter. The Russians are having some success in persuading Western politicians that the plucky Ukrainians cannot win against the mighty Russian military machine. Russia, argues Putin and his diplomats, has an inexhaustible supply of men and machines while Ukraine isn’t even a quarter the size of their neighbor. The argument is starting to take root in the West with some politicians arguing against money being spent on a lost cause. The problem is that this argument has the seeds of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

_________________

Published under International Cooperation with "Sindh Courier"