Survenues soudainement lundi et mardi sur les deux pipelines, ces fuites seraient la conséquence d' »actes délibérés », selon le Danemark.

Billeder fra F-16 af gaslækage i Østersøen. https://t.co/OgCDfcvTjG pic.twitter.com/D5wsoXvuda

— Forsvaret (@forsvaretdk) September 27, 2022

Des bouillonnements en pleine mer. Dans des circonstances troubles, les gazoducs Nord Stream 1 et 2 reliant la Russie à l’Allemagne ont été subitement touchés par des fuites, en mer Baltique, lundi 26 et mardi 27 septembre. Les autorités des différents pays concernés n’ont pas trouvé d’explications à ce stade mais n’excluent pas l’hypothèse d’un sabotage. Conséquence de la guerre en Ukraine, les pipelines ne sont pas opérationnels, mais tous les deux sont encore remplis de gaz.

Trois fuites « extrêmement rares » et inexpliquées

Trois fuites ont été détectées par les autorités suédoises et danoises. Une première a été identifiée lundi sur Nord Stream 2, puis deux autres, le lendemain, sur Nord Stream 1. Elles sont localisées au large de l’île danoise de Bornholm, en mer Baltique, en deux points séparés de plus de 70 km : l’un dans les eaux territoriales suédoises, l’autre dans les eaux danoises.

Le compte Twitter officiel des forces armées danoises a diffusé une vidéo et des photos des fuites.

Billeder fra F-16 af gaslækage i Østersøen. https://t.co/OgCDfcvTjG pic.twitter.com/D5wsoXvuda

— Forsvaret (@forsvaretdk) September 27, 2022

« Les fuites de gazoducs sont extrêmement rares », a commenté dans un communiqué le directeur de l’Agence danoise de l’énergie, Kristoffer Böttzauw. Assez rares pour obliger les autorités à « augmenter le niveau de vigilance », a-t-il ajouté. Le niveau d’alerte a été porté à orange, le deuxième plus élevé. La navigation est interdite dans un rayon de cinq milles nautiques (environ neuf kilomètres), ainsi que leur survol dans un rayon d’un kilomètre.

Des mesures concrètes pour augmenter la sécurité des usines et des installations du gazoduc vont devoir être instaurées par les entreprises du secteur, notamment concernant l’accès, la surveillance et la bonne tenue des installations. Selon les autorités, les incidents sont sans conséquences pour la sécurité ou la santé des résidents des îles danoises voisines de Bornholm et de Christiansø. L’impact environnemental devrait lui être local et limité, selon les premières évaluations.

Des « actes délibérés », selon Copenhague 

« Il est difficile d’imaginer que c’est accidentel », a estimé mardi la Première ministre danoise, Mette Frederiksen, n’excluant pas un possible sabotage. Mardi soir, elle a affirmé que ces fuites étaient dues à « des actes délibérés » et qu’elles devraient durer « au moins une semaine ».

Les autorités russes se disent « extrêmement préoccupées par la situation ». De son côté, l’exploitant des pipelines, le consortium Nord Stream, dépendant du géant Russe Gazprom, a dit ne pas avoir pu voir ni évaluer les dégâts, mais a reconnu le caractère exceptionnel de la situation. « Un incident durant lequel trois tuyaux éprouvent simultanément des difficultés, le même jour, n’est pas ordinaire », a déclaré un porte-parole à l’AFP.

Les autorités allemandes n’ont pas officiellement réagi, mais une source proche du gouvernement, citée par le quotidien allemand Tagesspiegel, déclare que « tout parle contre une coïncidence » et en faveur d’une « attaque ciblée ».

Des explosions sous-marines entendues

Le Réseau sismique national suédois (SNSN) a déclaré mardi qu’une trentaine de stations suédoises de mesure de l’activité sismique avaient enregistré « deux puissantes explosions sous-marines », aux endroits des fuites de gaz sur le pipeline Nord Stream. Une donnée qui alimente l’hypothèse d’un sabotage.

La première détonation a été captée à 02h03 lundi matin et la seconde à 19h04 lundi soir, aux deux endroits où des fuites ont été signalées respectivement à 13h52 et 20h41, a détaillé le directeur du SNSN, Björn Lund, à la télévision publique suédoise. Il précise que la zone est rarement utilisée par l’armée, qui n’a pas indiqué procéder à des exercices à ce moment-là, « comme elle le fait habituellement ».

Kiev dénonce « une attaque terroriste » planifiée par Moscou

Les autorités ukrainiennes ont, elles aussi, réagi à l’annonce des fuites. Pour Kiev, elles seraient le résultat d’un acte terroriste piloté par Moscou. « La fuite de gaz à grande échelle de Nord Stream 1 n’est rien de plus qu’une attaque terroriste planifiée par la Russie et un acte d’agression contre l’Union européenne », a affirmé sur Twitter le conseiller de la présidence ukrainienne, Mykhaïlo Podoliak.

Il a également ajouté que la Russie souhaitait « déstabiliser la situation économique en Europe et semer la panique avant l’hiver », sur fond de craintes d’une crise énergétique sans précédent dans les prochains mois. « La meilleure réponse à un tyran (…) ce sont des chars pour l’Ukraine », a-t-il encore écrit sur Twitter, appelant à plus de livraisons d’armes occidentales à l’armée ukrainienne pour faire face aux troupes de Moscou.

Des gazoducs au cœur d’un bras de fer géopolitique

Les deux pipelines font l’objet d’une bataille géopolitique ces derniers mois. Construit en parallèle au gazoduc Nord Stream 1, le pipeline Nord Stream 2 était destiné à doubler la capacité d’importation de gaz russe en Allemagne. Mais sa mise en service a été suspendue par Berlin, en représailles contre l’invasion de l’Ukraine par Moscou. Gazprom a par ailleurs progressivement réduit les volumes de gaz livrés par Nord Stream 1 jusqu’à la fermeture complète du gazoduc à la fin du mois d’août, accusant les sanctions occidentales d’avoir retardé les réparations nécessaires du pipeline.

World Opinions – France info

L’article « Puissantes explosions », « actes délibérés »… Que sait-on des fuites sur les gazoducs Nord Stream 1 et 2 en mer Baltique ? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

On August 4, 2020, nearly 2,750 tonnes of improperly stored ammonium nitrate exploded in the seaport in Beirut, killing more than 200 people, injuring more than 6,000, and displacing thousands from their homes. As Beirut residents still await answers from the official investigation, it is important not to brush aside this incident as the product of exceptional circumstances.

The widespread use of ammonium nitrate makes similar deadly explosions quite possible across the world. Equally concerning is the significant role this chemical plays in environmental degradation and climate change, which is also deadly. That is why it is crucial that the international community takes action beyond aiding the Lebanese authorities in the aftermath of the explosion.

Ammonium nitrate is an odourless substance that is commonly used to make fertiliser and explosives. Nitrogen fertiliser production accounts for nearly 1.2 percent of global primary energy demand, generates pollutants like fine dust, nitric acid emissions, and produces wastewater that may contain phosphorus, fluorides, ammonia, carbon dioxide, or weak acids. About 80 percent of manufactured ammonium nitrate is used for fertiliser, particularly in the global agro-industrial system.

Nitrogen is essential for plant growth. Ammonium nitrate fertiliser gained popularity after World War II as an inexpensive source of plant nutrients. Plants can more easily absorb synthetic fertiliser than naturally occurring nitrogen in the soil. The widespread use of nitrogen-based fertilisers has increased crop yields. However, fertiliser overuse has depleted naturally-occurring nutrients in the soil, making the agro-industrial system reliant on fertilisers to support its productivity.

Ammonium nitrate use can not only lead to tragedies like the Beirut blast but also cause much harm to nature and humans.

The overreliance on external inputs, such as ammonium nitrate, also comes at the expense of the health of farmworkers and consumers, the environment, and our climate.

Nitrogen-rich fertilisers are a key source of ammonia emissions, which combine with other air pollutants to form fine particulate matter. Particulate matter exposure can cause heart and pulmonary disease and has been linked to thousands of premature deaths in rural farming communities. Direct chemical exposure is especially harmful to farmworkers who regularly come into contact with fertilisers and other inputs.

Ammonium nitrate and its production also contribute to global warming. The use of nitrogen fertilisers, along with manures and other agricultural sources, accounts for nearly 60 percent of nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that can trap heat 300 times more than carbon dioxide, contributing to rising global temperatures.

Nutrients that are not absorbed by the soil or plants contaminate water sources, which is harmful to aquatic life. A visible expression of this disturbance is the annual dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Oman. Dead zones are caused by eutrophication, which happens when a body of water is contaminated by excess nutrients. Eutrophication increases algal growth, depletes oxygen in the water, and results in an environment where marine life cannot survive.

Additionally, the widespread overreliance on synthetic fertiliser is disrupting the Earth’s natural nitrogen cycle, which is one of Earth’s nine planetary boundaries. Planetary boundaries define the safe operating spaces for humanity, which, once crossed, can cause irreversible environmental damage that may have disastrous repercussions for our current way of life. Regulating the Earth’s natural nitrogen levels in the air, soil, and water, are necessary to sustain life and ensure a healthy environment. This requires rethinking global food production methods that do not transgress Earth’s planetary boundaries.

In order to avoid future incidents like the explosion in Beirut, but also tackle climate change and environmental degradation, we have to curb the use of ammonium nitrate.

Some may argue that reducing the use of fertilisers would threaten food security and sovereignty, especially in areas prone to famine. But that is not the case. Agroecology is emerging as a holistic answer to the challenge of growing enough food to feed ourselves without damaging the environment or contributing to global warming.

Agroecology is an integrated approach to agriculture that seeks to optimise the interactions between plants, animals, humans, and the environment to enable sustainable and fair food production based on local knowledge and traditional agricultural practices. This approach can help meet the global needs of food sovereignty and food security in a world that seeks to divest from carbon and nitrogen.

International climate initiatives are beginning to pay attention to agroecology. For example, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Koronivia joint work on agriculture, the Climate Dialogues have discussed the intersection of food security and climate change. It is encouraging that states are beginning to include agroecology in their Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

However, what is currently being done is not nearly enough. For example, in a couple of months, UN Secretary-General António Guterres is convening the 2021 Food Systems Summit, which seeks to “transform the way the world produces and consumes food”. This high-level event, however, appears dominated by agro-industrial interests, which are resisting divestment from nitrogen. Meanwhile, the ammonium nitrate market continues to grow and by 2026 is expected to be worth $19bn.

The 2021 Food Systems Summit should make agroecology the centrepiece of its strategy for the realisation of the right to food and the right to a healthy environment. The summit should discuss the recent calls for global agricultural subsidy reform to address agriculture’s role in the climate crisis.

The summit can be the first step towards divestment from nitrogen. The UN should work with its members towards removing subsidies for nitrogen-based fertilisers. It should also encourage countries that give out agricultural subsidies (currently amounting to $480bn globally) to prioritise crops that are less emission-intensive and to fund research and development of sustainable farming practices.

The Beirut explosion was avoidable. So are climate change, dead zones in the seas, and the disruption of the global nitrogen cycle. Urgent action is needed to save human lives and our planet.

By Marcos A Orellana – UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights

L’article Beyond the Beirut explosion: The many dangers of ammonium nitrate est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Only a truly independent international investigation can renew the Lebanese people’s hopes for their country’s future.

The August 4 explosion at the Port of Beirut not only killed more than 170 people, injured thousands of others, and left at least 300,000 people homeless, but it also dashed the Lebanese people’s hopes for a better future for their country.

This is why, I, alongside 36 other United Nations Special Rapporteurs and independent experts, issued a statement earlier this month calling for an independent and transparent investigation into the explosion that underscores international human rights obligations, clarifies responsibilities related to the explosion, and leads to justice and accountability. I am also acutely aware of what is at stake since my immediate family was hit by the blast, sustaining life-threatening injuries and losing their livelihoods.

In our joint statement, my colleagues and I urged the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to hold a special debate on the Port of Beirut explosion when the council reconvenes in September so as to explore all avenues by which this leading international human rights body can support the people in Lebanon and help them meet their needs and demands.

There are several reasons why we believe the UNHRC should play a leading role in the efforts to ensure that effective, transparent and impartial justice is realised for the victims of the explosion, and people in Lebanon at large.

Like scores of Lebanese and international civil society organisations, we do not trust the Lebanese government’s ability to conduct an efficient and transparent investigation into its own failures. Therefore, we believe only an international and truly independent investigation can achieve the desired results. 

As we noted in our statement, the investigation into the explosion should not only be protected from any undue influence, but it should also have « a strong and broad mandate to effectively probe any systemic failures of the Lebanese authorities and institutions to protect human rights. » 

Unlike an investigation led by the Lebanese government, an international investigation mandated by the UNHRC could go beyond finding the individuals directly culpable for the explosion and address the systemic collapse of Lebanese governance that paved the way for the blast.

When faced with calls for an international investigation into the blast, Lebanese elites raised concerns about foreign powers meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs and using the blast to push their own agenda. 

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun, for example, rejected calls for an international investigation just a few days after the devastating blast, on the grounds that such an effort would « dilute the truth ». Lebanon’s caretaker Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm also dismissed calls for an international probe, asserting that she does not want to « create a system where every time there is an important issue I go to the international ».

The Lebanese people’s lack of trust in local judicial authorities undoubtedly justifies the calls to involve international institutions and bodies in a probe into the explosion. However, the concerns about the possibility of foreign governments using an international probe to serve their own interests should not be dismissed as baseless either. 

The Lebanese people have previously witnessed how seemingly well-meaning international inquiries – such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established by the UN Security Council – could end up serving narrow geopolitical interests and ignoring wider calls for justice. 

So when French President Emmanuel Macron calls for an international inquiry into the explosion, the Lebanese people should be suspicious of his intentions. After all, France was the former colonial power that institutionalised the sectarian system that is at the root of Lebanon’s current problems. And it is still working to expand its influence over Lebanon today. Last year, for example, the French government was the main player behind the CEDRE proposal, in which a mix of international institutions and countries pledged to give Lebanon $11bn in loans and grants on the condition that it implement certain reforms. On the surface, the proposal seems to be aimed at helping the people of Lebanon. But under closer inspection, it becomes clear that its primary aim is to give international lenders, especially France and the World Bank, a significant amount of power over political and economic life in Lebanon. 

The international community has failed Lebanon too often. For too long it left the Lebanese people searching for justice and a better future with a choice between relying on faulty and corrupt local mechanisms and international efforts guided by vested interests. But this does not mean that the international system lacks the capacity to conduct a truly impartial probe into Lebanon’s August 4 explosion that is not shadowed by powerful governments’ hidden agendas and interests. To achieve this, countries with a vested interest in Lebanon – such as France, the United States, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and China – would need to step back, and allow a multilateral process guided by an impartial international body and based on human rights principles to take its course. 

As Special Rapporteurs, who work on a voluntary basis and are independent from any government or organisation, we believe the UNHRC is well placed to give the Lebanese people what they desperately need. 

While we know the Council has the capacity to mandate an international investigation that would meet the Lebanese people’s demands for transparency and impartiality, we are also aware of how political pressures can cloud such a process. 

Just a few months ago in June, amid the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US, a bloc of African countries pressed the Council to hold an urgent debate on racism, police brutality and violence against protesters. During the debate, some delegates called for an international probe to investigate racially motivated police brutality in the US. However, due to pressure from the US and its many allies, the Council failed to efficiently address the problem and merely adopted a vague resolution calling for a report on racially discriminatory and violent law enforcement practices used against Africans and people of African descent, without specifically naming the US. 

Only time will tell whether the UNHRC will be able to lead the way in the Lebanese people’s quest to bring justice to the victims of the explosion and hold the people responsible to account. 

To mandate an international investigation into the Port of Beirut explosion, the Council needs at least one country to officially put forward such a request. If a group of countries backs the proposal, it will send the message that the international community is ready and willing to help Lebanon in its time of need. 

Come September, the Lebanese people will see whether the messages of solidarity and concern issued by world governments in the aftermath of the devastating explosion were honest. If the UNHRC successfully mandates an independent investigation into the matter and ensures that the investigation is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, it will give the Lebanese people renewed hope for their country’s future. But if it buckles under political pressure and takes no action, or accepts a watered-down resolution, it will confirm the fears that the international community is incapable of furthering an impartial human rights agenda. 

Fakhri is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

L’article International justice for Lebanon? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.