text:
Buy the Truth
and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding
Elizabeth Bury
« Arctic Sea Ice Scam
Filthy Dreamers »
CO2 Enrichment and Plant Nutrition
Published August 15, 2009	Uncategorized 12 Comments
Tags: Al Gore, C3, climate change, CO2, iron deficiency, mycorrhization, nitrogen fixation, phosphorus, photosynthesis, plant nutrition, plant physiology
It was noted in previous posts that for crops with C3 photosynthetic pathway the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are limiting to plant growth. Crops are currently starved of CO2 in a similar way to being starved of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, light etc. Current atmospheric levels of CO2 can thus be regarded as a plant stress, which weakens them and makes them inefficient. At higher levels of CO2 this stress is reduced, and the plant copes better with all other types of stress, including heat and cold, atmospheric pollution, root pathogens, as well as shortages of water, minerals etc.
Sylvan Wittwer (Professor emeritus at Michigan State University, who directed the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for 20 years and chaired the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council) has remarked:
There has been and still remains, a great reluctance on the part of many climatologists and ecologists, and especially environmentalists, to accept the concept that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be more beneficial than harmful for plant growth, food production, and the overall biosphere…Yet the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Summary data from 279 published studies is shown below in which plants of all types were grown under paired stress (red) and unstressed (blue) conditions. For resource-limited plants the benefits of increased CO2 are astounding.
Wittwer points out that of the hundreds of scientific reports documenting the benefits, Al Gore carefully selected five reports and a personal communication to emphasize possible negative aspects to enhanced CO2 on plants. Gore knew what he was doing, of course – he either deliberately rejected the facts, or gave instructions to researchers for his book only to cherry pick papers that support his alarmist agenda. Again we see him as a lying propagandist.
In Physiological plant ecology: ecophysiology and stress physiology of funcional groups (Springer, 2003), Walter Larcher writes:
According to over 3000 scientific publications on the biology of CO2 effects, a broad spectrum of growth responses to CO2 enrichment exists. Since elevated CO2 often reduces the plants' demands for other resources, CO2 effects on growth do not simply follow Liebig's law of the minimum. Plants exposed to elevated CO2 need less enzymes (and thus lower quantities of leaf proteins and nitrogen), lose less water (can cope with less soil moisture and often operate at smaller stomata openings) and need less light (because of a shift in the light compensation point for photosynthesis) to reach the equivalent, or even higher photosynthetic rates than plants growing under control conditions with "normal" CO2 concentrations.
We will show from the literature the tremendous benefits of enhanced atmospheric CO2. The benefits are much more marked in crops that are subject to resource limitation. Under ideal conditions, where there is no shortage of water, light, nutrients, trace elements etc, the benefit of doubling atmospheric CO2 may be 40%. However, where plants are resource limited a doubling of CO2 can enhance growth of crops by over 100% in some cases. This is particularly important in regions of the world where the soil is poor for many reasons, since increasing atmospheric CO2 will enable crops to be grown efficiently where they currently cannot be grown without first improving the soil and irrigation. In this post we will briefly mention minerals and other essential nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, iron etc).
For example, iron deficiency is severely limiting to crop growth in calcareous soils, which represent 30% of global land area. Increased atmospheric CO2 enables plants to extract higher levels of iron from the soil. Jin et al in Elevated Carbon Dioxide Improves Plant Iron Nutrition through Enhancing the Iron-Deficiency-Induced responses under Iron-Limited Conditions in Tomato (Plant Physiology, May 2009) demonstrated
Plant growth was increased by elevated CO2 in both Fe-sufficient and Fe-limited media. Shoot fresh weight was increased by 22% and 44%, respectively, and root fresh weight by 43% and 97%, respectively, compared with plants grown in ambient CO2…
Improved nutrient and water uptake has in some cases been traced to greater root mycorrhization (a symbiotic fungal extension of roots). Mycorrhizae also improve plant health by protecting roots from pathogenic microorganisms.
In Effect of Carbon Dioxide Concentration on Growth and Dry Matter Production of Crop Plants (Japan. Jour. Crop Sci, 1978) Imai and Murata showed that after 10 days of treatment with nitrogen at 350ppm and 1000ppm CO2 the dry weight (DW) of rice plants was as follows:
350ppm CO2, 30 mg nitrogen per plant	DW = 835 mg per plant
350ppm CO2, 120 mg nitrogen per plant	DW = 1,081 mg per plant
1000ppm CO2, 30 mg nitrogen per plant	DW = 1,199 mg per plant
1000ppm CO2, 120 mg nitrogen per plant	DW = 1,862 mg per plant
This demonstrates that at higher levels of atmospheric CO2, food crops have considerably lower requirements for fixed nitrogen for the same growth; alternatively, for the same nitrogen treatment they achieve considerably enhanced growth.
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 lead to greater biological nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere, so less is required to be added as fertilizer. This is especially important in legumes, which are also able to improve their uptake and usage of phosphorus with increased CO2. Legume /bacterial symbiosis leading to nitrogen fixation is significantly increased at elevated CO2 levels (Reddy et al, 1989; Reardon et al, 1990). Philips et al (1976) demonstrated increased nitrogen fixation in peas, and Sherwood (1978) found the same in clover. A classic study by Hardy and Havelka (1975) showed that a tripling of atmospheric CO2 results in a six-fold increase in biological nitrogen fixation (from 75 to 425 kg per hectare) by rhizobial bacteria in nodules attached to the roots of soybeans.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is an unmixed blessing – it will bring currently unproductive land into use and bring greater yield from existing land without additional fertilizer use. This is a wonderful benefit in being able to feed an increasing world population. These effects can be subjected to routine experiment and observation, can be demonstrated and reproduced, and so are sound science, unlike the specious pseudo-science underpinning the supposed effects of CO2 on climate.
12 Responses to "CO2 Enrichment and Plant Nutrition"
1 Ed Darrell August 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Limitations on plant growth, generally, in order:
3. Sunlight
Some new croplands will be opened, but not always in prime areas. For example, the vast prairies of North America, in Canada and the U.S., are prime wheat growing fields because they were prime grass-growing areas previously. Soils and water were just right.
In contrast, the North Panhandle of Texas only has the water part of the time — and opening it to wheat resulted in The Dustbowl.
Still, those crops are, in modern agriculture, heavy users of fertilizers. Nitrogen fixation may increase, but not all plants are legumes. Grasses are not legumes, for example, which include all the cereal grains. Clover isn't much good as a commercial crop. Alfalfa goes to provide hay for livestock.
So if we're increasing wheat and barley and corn, or other human-edible crops, we're not reducing fertilizer needs.
Rice? Well, it's a water-loving crop. While it's possible to grow it without flooded rice paddies, it's not going to do as well in Wisconsin as it does in Arkansas.
And can we talk insects for a moment? Warming allows the pine borers to work year around, killing pine trees up to ten times more efficiently than when we have winters cold enough to slow them down. Dead trees don't sink carbon dioxide at all, they add to the load in the air, and they increase warming.
Sure, in a few cases, CO2 will benefit crops. In many more cases it will benefit weeds more, the increased heat will make the crops unproductive, and insects will wipe out any potential gains.
I don't know of anyone who is reluctant to discuss crop benefits from CO2 among serious climate, weather and agricultural scientists. However, they realistically look at the situation, and they conclude that it's a fool's errand to try to make a case that warming is a good idea. We're not going to plow under Canadian forests to grow wheat as plant zones move north, and replacing Kansas wheat with Mexico's blue agave seems like a bad trade-off — except that it might increase the production of tequila that farmers can use to drown their woes as their farms go bankrupt.
And so far as I've seen, you've failed to account that increased carbon dioxide generally favors weeds over domesticated crops.
ScientistForTruth responds
You are mixing two things together. A lot of what you are saying assumes that the increasing CO2 concentration will cause significant warming, but there's no robust scientific mechanism or evidence for that. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence for the benefits of elevated CO2 on food crops, and it is scientific and easily testable. For C3 crops I have shown in former posts that they will increasingly outcompete C4 weeds (which globally are the most troublesome weeds for C3 crops) as CO2 concentrations increase.
For the USA, the agriculture section of the report Climate Change Impacts on the United States did model simulations based on the Hadley and Canadian scenarios for 2030 and 2090 for 16 crops, and, of course, those are taking account of warming scenarios. They show dramatic improvements in crop yields, some of them over 100%, and in the overview they state
"…at the national level, productivity of many major crops will likely increase under the climate scenarios used in these crop models. Crops showing generally positive results include cotton, corn for grain and silage, soybeans, sorghum, barley, sugar beets and citrus fruits."
2 Michael Babbitt August 16, 2009 at 7:15 am
You can see the weasel words in a lot of AGW propaganda: "may", "likely", "could". Because the science is so shoddy and nonconclusive and only tied together by a AGW perspective of a "possible" global catastrophe. I am more convinced now that more C02 leads to a slightly warmer planet with a much more robust Biosphere. (This could or could not result in positive or negative changes to our world.)
3 Ed Darrell August 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm
ScientistForTruth says
I have cropped this extremely long comment from Ed Darrell as most readers will otherwise probably give up before getting to the end.
Ed Darrell says
The report said:
At the national level,the models used in this Assessment found that irrigated agriculture's need for water declined approximately 5-10% for 2030 and 30-40% for 2090 in the context of the two primary climate scenarios, without adaptation due to increased precipitation and shortened crop-growing periods.
Oh, yeah, productivity will increase while the plants grow, but only two alfalfa crops a year instead of three — maybe no corn crop, maybe no wheat, sorghum, soy or barley. Ouch. The growing season is shortened, so total production through the year will be less on those crops.
This commentator seems not to understand the difference between 'growing season' and 'growing period'. A shortened growing season means that the number of weeks in the year that crops can be grown declines (very northerly latitudes have short growing seasons). A shortened growing period means that the time from sowing to harvest is reduced, so it can be possible to plan for more crop harvests per year. This is what is meant in the report, and it is the complete opposite of what this commentator thinks the report says. This would have been obvious to anyone acquainted with plant physiology as the report (in the section quoted above) is showing significant improvements in water efficiency, which come from reduced transpiration for two reasons: higher CO2 levels closing the stomata, and fewer elapsed days for the transpiration to occur due to shorter growing period. Had he read the report more carefully the commentator would have also noted that the report clearly states, in the context of adaptation:
Sowing dates and other seasonal changes
Plant two crops instead of one or a spring and fall crop with a short fallow period to avoid excessive heat and drought in mid-summer. For already warm growing areas,winter cropping could possibly become more productive than summer cropping.
As to your bizarre claim that there is no "robust" indication that CO2 causes warming, I can only conclude that you've never studied chemistry or physics, or maybe either, and that you know nothing about meteorology and greenhouse gases. The greenhouse chemistry of CO2 has been well understood for about 20 years; the effect obtains if the sun shines and no other pollutant gets in the way. It's a chemical/physical reaction about as certain as the fact that combusting hydrogen and oxygen will result in the creation of water. I suppose there's a chance that God will intervene at some moment and miraculously change the chemistry of the universe, but I'm not a rash gambler, and it's not a good idea to bet on such miracles.
ScientistForTruth replies.
This commentator can only conclude that I'm ignorant of chemistry and physics because he doesn't seem to understand these subjects himself (for those readers who know who I am, his comment will come as rather fantastic). He claims to be competent in biological sciences, but to mix up crop growing periods with seasons weakens his case on that science as well. Comprehension skills also seem to be lacking as I made no claim that 'there is no "robust" indication that CO2 causes warming' but that there's no robust scientific mechanism or evidence that increasing CO2 concentration will cause significant warming. There's a world of difference between no effect and an effect that is not significant. The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation is covered in my post Greenhouse Nonsense. But to extrapolate from laboratory spectroscopy to global warming so as to state that global warming is as certain as the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen displays ignorance. For a start 'warming' refers to temperature not heat, and spectral absorption is dealing with energy not temperature. Moreover, the small amount of energy absorbed by increasing CO2 is not sufficient significantly to warm the planet. To say "The greenhouse chemistry of CO2 has been well understood for about 20 years; the effect obtains if the sun shines and no other pollutant gets in the way" is actually almost irrelevant because the impacts projected in the IPCC reports don't rely on simple CO2 'greenhouse chemistry' but on huge positive feedbacks in other atmospheric systems which are certainly not well known, and are currently unproven. The comparison with hydrogen and oxygen forming water is thus inane. Finally, we don't need to invoke a miracle to keep the planet cool. If God sustains the established laws of physics and chemistry then we shall not see any significant warming – by this I mean that we will not be able to distinguish any anthropogenic effect from natural variation with statistical significance.
4 Dan Absher September 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Considering that we have a sleepy sun, a possible upcoming grand minimum, which if it happens will be accompanied by more cloudy days and less sunlight reaching the earth, with shortened growing seasons, a large increase in atmospheric CO2 content would be very beneficial. A shortened growing period would be welcome. A short description is here:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/09/great-copenhagen-liars-conference.html
5 Gordon Sirmond February 5, 2011 at 9:19 pm
I will admit to not having read the wole work, only the 14 page summary on SPPI site.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/55_benefits_of_co2_pamphlet.pdf
Points 21 to 23 attribute increased human longevity to increased atmospheric CO2. Unfortunatley I was ignorant enoughto believe that that was down to improvements in public health and medicine. Still you live and learn
Further to my last post – if CO2 at present atmospheric levels is limiting plant growth then why is atmopsheric CO2 increasing and why is this extra carbon not being utilized by plants? Why aren't plants in "the wild" growing faster?
Hope you can explain
ScientistForTruth responds:
The extra carbon is being utilized and the plants in the wild are growing faster. A full 30% of the agricultural yield improvements in the twentieth century can be attributed to rising CO2 levels. If we were to reduce CO2 levels to where they were 100 years ago, so reducing yield by 30%, it would probably wipe out 500 million persons this year: there are already 1 billion persons in the world barely surviving.
The increase in the rate of growth of forests due to higher CO2 is tremendous and has been noted in the literature. If plants were not sinking CO2 faster then the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be higher.
The rate that the developing world is increasing CO2 emissions (look at China and India) is faster than the increasing rate of uptake of plants, so the concentration keeps rising.
Right, so stomata close in response to increased levels of CO2. Presumably this is to prevent acidification of the interior environment of the leaf, or can ypou think of another reason. Reduced stomatal opening will result in reduced gaseous exchange with the atmosphere. So the plant is acting to reduce uptake of atmospheric gases – so how does increased atmospheric CO2 increae yield when plants actively reducing gaseous exchange. And arent the levels of CO in the atmosphere still blow those necessary to increas yields in glasshouses?
Could you explain please?
There is a continuous increase in plant growth and yields from suffocation levels around 250ppm up to at least 1000ppm, and much higher for many plants. Greenhouses often operate at 1000-2000ppm CO2. Any increase all the way up from our present levels to at least 1000 ppm is going to be beneficial to plant life.
Plants lose a lot of available energy in transporting water to leaves, only for that water to be lost when the stomata are open. C3 photosynthesizers also lose a lot of carbon that they have captured when the stomata are open. Think of it in terms of partial pressure or osmosis. When the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases and the stomata close the ingress rate of carbon may be similar, but the egress rate of carbon and water decrease, so the net effect is highly beneficial.
I forgot to include this but
"The rate that the developing world is increasing CO2 emissions (look at China and India) is faster than the increasing rate of uptake of plants, so the concentration keeps rising." which must surely tell us that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone past the point at which it had any benefical effects
No, it doesn't surely tell us that at all. If the rate of emissions increase exceeds the rate of uptake increase then the atmospheric concentration will keep rising, and as it does so the uptake rate will keep increasing. So long as the partial pressure of CO2 keeps increasing (i.e. we deliberately keep ramping up our emissions) then yields will keep increasing.
We need these yield benefits – by 2050 there are expected to be 3 billion more mouths to feed on this planet; there are already a billion on starvation existence. Increasing carbon emissions has an important role to play in sustaining mankind. Should we be so foolish as to reduce carbon emissions then we will consign many billions to death. I have no doubt that this is an ulterior motive behind moves to reduce carbon emissions, a sort of Malthusian 'Final Solution'. It will make Hitler's 6 million exterminated look a minor affair.
9 Kimbal February 14, 2011 at 5:37 am
The tiny portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is simply not capable of having an impact on temperatures. Furthermore CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. Even if CO2 could warm the planet, this would be beneficial rather than detrimental. We know the Middle Age Warming Period was a time of plenty for the Northern Hemisphere, a time when Greenland and Coastal Canada was hospitable to crops and herd animals, a time when grapes grew well in England! No coastal cities were flooded, there were not massive horrific storms ravaging the globe, there was just more food and milder winters.
10 Gordon Sirmond February 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm
And as for this comment
"Should we be so foolish as to reduce carbon emissions then we will consign many billions to death. I have no doubt that this is an ulterior motive behind moves to reduce carbon emissions, a sort of Malthusian 'Final Solution'. It will make Hitler's 6 million exterminated look a minor affair."
You should hang your head in shame for having ever typed that let alone published it
ScientistFor Truth replies
You must be kidding. I'm not ashamed of pointing out greater sins. Which is the greater evil, exterminating some billions by deliberately cutting back on a life-giving gas that is necessary for their sustenance, or exterminating some millions directly with toxic gas? It's obvious I'm making a comparison.
11 Darlea Henderson June 19, 2011 at 7:14 pm
How do I reply to the people that buy into CO2 being bad. They say that the CO2 that is manmade is a heavier isotope than regular CO2 and this is how they get around the argument that it is good for plant growth. Are there any experiments that show CO2 with different isotopes doesn't impact the environment?
These people are either very misinformed, or are trying to mislead you. There are three carbon isotopes C12, C13 and C14. C14 is radioactive and present in only tiny quantities so we can ignore it. C12 makes up around at least 99% of the carbon in the atmosphere, in plants, in carbonate rocks, and in fossil fuels. The balance is C13, the heavier isotope. The differences between the amounts of C13 in all these different carbon carriers is a lot less than 1% of the total carbon. CO2 in the atmosphere is slightly richer in the heavier C13 than in the emissions from fossil fuels, but neither is more than 1% anyway.
Plants slightly prefer to take up C12 over C13, so since carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are composed of more than 99% C12 (and slightly richer in C12 than atmospheric CO2) then they are excellent plant food. In fact, the concentration of C12 in carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fraction of a percent richer than in atmospheric CO2, so is correspondingly a fraction of a percent better for plants. But, frankly, since we are talking about fractions of a percent difference it is almost completely irrelevant with regard to growth rates.
Of course, carbon emissions are being vented to atmosphere, so over the decades the percentage concentration of C12 in the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually slowly increasing from its present level of around 99% of the isotope favoured by plants. The most favourable concentration would be 100% C12, and carbon emissions are closer to that ideal!
So as carbon emissions continue the increasing concentration of CO2 itself within the total mix of the atmosphere favours plants (dramatically), and the increasing proportion of C12 within the CO2 fraction also favours plants (very slightly). Burning fossil fuels is excellent to be able to help feed the world in the coming decades.
12 Peter Messenger June 6, 2012 at 8:49 am
I am but a simple layman, but I have found this blog delightful and informative. The discussions seem measured without the SHOUTING normally coming from both sides of the AGW fence.
I am becoming ever more sceptical as I dig deeper and appreciate sites such as this to further my overall education.
I cannot add to the discussions (particularly regarding mathematics :-)) but thought you might find this of interest and relevant to this part of the blog.
I understand from the news this morning that the site is now up and running but, as a layman, I can't honestly believe that this in any way represents a valid eco-system for the purposes of settling the AGW debate.
I would like your thoughts on it.
Thanks for your encouragement. The experiment you mentioned cannot tell anything more than the possible effects of elevated CO2 on a particular forest. If properly conducted it might produce some useful insights. Lots of studies have been done in laboratories and under controlled conditions to determine the effect of CO2 on plants, so this is just another, and at a larger scale. Of course, the results will only have a minor application to the AGW debate.
What then is Mathematics?
The Du Sautoy Code
Copernicus and the Lutherans
Galileo's vain ambition
Hawking's Grand Delusion (Part III)
Hawking's Grand Delusion (Part II)
Hawking's Grand Delusion (Part I)
Synthetic Cells and the Demiurge
The Atheist Delusion
UN IPCC: Rotting from the Head down
Climate Change and the Death of Science
Eco-Imperialism – every Environmentalist's Dream
Filthy Dreamers
Arctic Sea Ice Scam
Archives Select Month April 2012 (1) August 2011 (1) May 2011 (2) February 2011 (3) July 2010 (2) January 2010 (1) October 2009 (1) August 2009 (3) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (4) March 2009 (2) February 2009 (2) December 2008 (4) November 2008 (5) October 2008 (7) September 2008 (2)
Toxic Seawater Fraud
Galileo's vain ambition
Photosynthesis and CO2 Enrichment
Andrew S Hansen on Photosynthesis and CO2 En…
Gary Waayers on Photosynthesis and CO2 En…
Ben Masters on Galileo's vain ambition
Ben Masters on What then is Mathematics?
Ben Masters on Copernicus and the Luther…
xyila on Greenhouse Nonsense
Shooter on The Atheist Delusion
Shooter on Galileo's vain ambition
Eclectikus on Atheist Mythology
Shane on Photosynthesis and CO2 En…
Shooter on Islam and Science
KWRegan on What then is Mathematics?
KWRegan on The Du Sautoy Code
Her birth, parentage, and family
Her natural temper, parts and genius
Her conversion and the earliness of it
Her diary
Her Christian virtues and graces
Her walking with God
Her behaviour with others
Her afflictions, losses, and difficulties
Her redemption of time
Her changes of life, and relative duties
Her veneration for the ministry, and love to ordinances
Her concern for the common interest of religion
Her usefulness to the bodies and souls of others
Her reproving, and taking reproofs
Her steady adherence to Protestant Dissenters
Her work on Sabbaths, and at sacraments
Her private devotions
Her motto
Her preparations for death, clear evidences, and strong consolations
Her last sickness and death
Al Gore anthropogenic global warming Arabic atheism BBC Big Bang C3 carbon capture carbon dioxide Carl Sagan Christian theology climate change climate models CO2 CO2 enrichment Copernicus Creation creationism crops Dark Ages David Berlinski decline of science drought Enlightenment equilibrium evolution food Galileo global cooling global warming Hadley Centre Harry Kroto hypothesis Intelligent design IPCC Islam James Hansen John Holdren Julia Slingo Kepler Le Chatelier Malthus Malthusian Martin Rees Marxism mathematics Met Office Michael Faraday Michael Reiss Middle Ages Mike Hulme modern science NASA National Geographic Nazism Obama Ocean acidification Paul Ehrlich Paul Parsons Paul Reiter photosynthesis propaganda pseudo-science R.A. Pielke Sr Richard Dawkins Royal Society science Science and religion sea level socialism Stephen Hawking The Grand Design Thomas Hobbes UKCP09 WWF


text:
The Maldives – An Unlikely ISIS Haven
by Antonia Gough , March 22, 2021
Credit: Public domain (Google Images)
The Maldives, a small republic of 1,200 islands in the Indian Ocean, is traditionally a peaceful place, with most locals taking their security and stability for granted. However, today the Maldives has the highest per capita number globally of foreign fighters who have travelled to take up arms and fight in Syria. The government must reassert efforts to tackle the root causes of radicalisation, as well as address the exacerbating factors in play on the islands .
The Origins of This Phenomenon
Following the 2004 Sri Lankan tsunami, various Saudi Salafist non-governmental organisations came to the islands on the pretext of helping rebuild badly affected areas. Instead, members of these organisations gradually brainwashed young Maldivian men who were living below the poverty line into believing that the tsunami was a punishment for failing to follow the true teachings of Islam. Over the next 15 years, radical Islamist ideology infiltrated the social fabric of the islands.
Salafist ideologies have not just infiltrated the young islanders, but also the islands' security forces, who play a part in recruitment of young men to ISIS. An indirect consequence of this infiltration has been that sheikhs are licensed by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs to preach on the archipelago, free of any government oversight of their activity. This allows extremist views to be freely expressed and communicated throughout the Maldives. Without any checks in place, radical Sheikhs will continue to preach their views and facilitate radicalisation. The government must work towards a more thorough vetting process for the Imams and Sheikhs who practice on the islands.
A Calculated Target Group
Maldivian men make attractive recruits because of their physical strength and their experience in street gangs as a result of growing up on the islands. Perhaps more importantly however, Maldivian men are attractive recruits as a result of their existing familiarity with strict Islamic teachings. As an Islamic Republic, the Maldives' government demands that every citizen belong to the state Islamic religion and adhere to Sharia Law.
Maldivian men are also socio-economically vulnerable. High unemployment and levels of drug use make them susceptible recruits. Individuals who are part of criminal gangs or are serving time in prison as a result of this unemployment and drug use are at an elevated risk of radicalisation. The financial incentive and sense of purpose provided by terrorist groups purport as as an effective antidote to the difficult lives these young men lead.
How Severe is the Radicalisation Issue?
According to official law enforcement figures, 173 travelled to Syria to fight and 432 have attempted to (although the real number is estimated to be far higher). According to Maldivian law enforcement, as of December 2019, there are approximately 1,400 "religious extremists" located on the archipelago. 1 in 2,000 Maldivians fought for ISIS in Syria.
The Government Response
The wave of radicalisation that has swept the island is posing an increasing threat to the Maldives' tourism industry. The government became aware of this threat in the early 2010s, and responded by passing two key pieces of legislation in 2014: the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This second Act led to the creation of the National Counterterrorism Centre in 2016, which has undergone multiple revisions in an attempt to strengthen the country's anti-terror laws.
In October 2019, President Solih announced a five year counterterrorism plan. Early work on the National Terrorism Response Plan began in cooperation with the UK government in December 2020, signalling a promising start to the initiative. This plan laid out how the country's security apparatus will coordinate and cooperate in response to a terrorist incident. This Plan and the action already taken by government are encouraging signs that the highest levels of the Maldivian state are alert to the risk and treating it as a policy priority.
A Problem Getting Noticed Further Afield
This issue has become so acute that many international bodies, such as the European External Action Service and the United Nations Development Programme have become involved. The EU provided EUR2,500,000 to the country to combat terrorism in 2019. EUR1,000,000 of this funding has gone towards a project that supports the Maldives government in developing a greater understanding of extremism and radicalisation. The funding will also be used to build community resilience to these forces that have so far created a conducive environment to Islamist extremism on the islands.
The other segment of the funds has gone towards strengthening the country's institutional capacity to counter and respond to terrorism. The country will be offered support by INTERPOL and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. This project will continue until June 2021 and will provide targeted support for the islands' prison services in preventing radicalisation in prisons and better train the judiciary to prosecute terrorism and extremism related offences. Another ally in the country's fight against jihadist terrorism is Japan, who in 2019 granted the government USD4,600,000 to help counter violent extremism and terrorism.
Radicalisation Consequences Close to Home
In December 2019, the Police Commissioner warned:
"There are close to 1,400 Maldivians with us today across the country who have fallen into extremist ideology to the point where they would not hesitate to take the life of the person next to them."
These developments in the Maldives have in part been driven by ISIS's broader strategic shift towards the Asian continent following their defeat in Syria and Iraq by 2019.
In February 2020, three foreigners were stabbed on one of the islands. Soon after the event, a Maldivian radical group affiliated with ISIS took responsibility for the attack via a video message. In this video, three masked men announced:
"The portrayal that this [Maldives] is paradise […] has become a mirage. From now on, the only thing they [foreign travelers] will taste [in the Maldives] is fire".
They further warned that more attacks could be expected.
Indeed, only two months later, ISIS claimed responsibility for an arson attack on one of the islands. In what was their first attack on the islands, no one was killed but five boats were destroyed. In November 2020, police carried out a nationwide operation, arresting five suspected terrorists and foiling a planned attack.
A Complicated Balancing Act?
The risk posed by this increased terror threat has significant implications for one of the country's biggest industries – tourism – which accounts for a significant 25% of the country's economic output. However, some anticipate it is tourism that is actually a key motivator for Islamic radicalisation.
The contrast on the island between the liberal culture of tourists, who are often scantily clad and consume alcohol, with the local population, who usually adhere to conservative Islam, makes for a tense coexistence. This has sparked a desire in the local population to stamp out the influence of Western culture. Terrorism is perceived as an effective way of deterring Westerners from visiting the island and thereby reducing cultural tensions.
If considerable action is not taken to address the conditions contributing to the radicalisation of Maldivian citizens, there is real potential for terrorist violence to worsen as tourists return to the island after the pandemic. The dangerous cocktail of political instability, including an economy devastated by COVID-19's impact on tourism, climate change, high levels of unemployment, and gang violence, has the potential to cause increased terrorist violence in the future.
The government must now confront this overlooked extremist threat in spite of the potential challenges posed by the status of Islam and Sharia Law in the country and in government. Political resistance is inevitable, but in order to make progress the government must begin to root out engrained religious forces which are providing the systemic backdrop to the growing terrorism threat in The Maldives.
Categories: Asia Pacific, Security
Tags: #terrorthreat, #TheMaldives, extremism, Islamic State, Islamist
Antonia Gough
Lead, Engage and Balance: U.S strategic options for integrating China

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Heir to fortune found dead under railroad overpass
On Behalf of Michael A. Sawamura, Attorney at Law | Aug 23, 2013 | Estate Administration And Probate |
People in California may have seen a recent article about a 60-year-old man who was found dead in Wyoming under a railway overpass. His body was discovered by children who were sledding; coroners believe the man died of exposure to the elements. The man, who may have been living as a transient, wasn't your average homeless person, however; he was the adopted great-grandson of former U.S. Senator and copper tycoon William Andrews Clark and heir to a vast sum of the family fortune.
William Andrews Clark's last surviving daughter died in 2011 as a recluse in a New York nursing home. At the time of her death, she controlled the family fortune of over $300 million. In her estate planning, she excluded her estranged family, leaving all of her money to various people in her life, including her nurse and her goddaughter. The man found in Wyoming would have been her half-great-nephew, and a potential heir to the fortune.
After her death, 19 of her relatives challenged her will, including a public administrator who had been acting on behalf of the deceased Wyoming great-nephew. As an heir, he would have been entitled to about $19 million from the family estate, but this money will now be split amongst the other surviving family members if their challenge of the will is successful. The challenge could go before a jury as soon as later this year.
This is a curious story about the remnants of a once mighty family empire and the dysfunction that may lead to the dissipation of the Clark family's vast wealth. It will be interesting to see how the probate court handles this issue and whether or not the family's claims will ultimately entitle them to a piece of their ancestor's fortunes.
Source: NBC News, "Potential heir to $300 million Clark copper fortune found dead, homeless," Bill Dedman, Aug. 16, 2013


Our color compatibility charts are reference guides that allow you to cross reference similar colors across thread lines. If you are sewing with King Tut and want to find a color match in Bottom Line, use our color compatibility chart as a reference tool.
Bottom Line to So Fine!
King Tut to So Fine!


"Also dont pay attention to the bad reviews they most likely misunderstood what this cable is for."
"I went ahead and bought it anyways since it was cheap and I had misplaced the OEM cord that came with the headphones."
"ALSO some cables have a littlebit of plastic around the base of the 3.5 mm jack that you just have to peel off, its easy but the cable wont fully connect if that piece isnt removed."
"i had lost the oem cable it came with and needed a new one fast the meelectronics website wanted $10 plus shipping for one cable and i found this great deal hereon amazon with 5 3ft cables for 7 bucks and FREE shipping."
"This cable works very well for me."
"Nice looking cable, good price, not right for an iPod."