View previous stories
	Why Carbon Capture is not a Climate Solution by CIEL, Imperial College, Global Witness, agencies   Nov. 2023   Unpacking Carbon Capture and Storage: The Technology Behind the Promise, by Zachary Rempel, Laura Cameron, Olivier Bois von Kursk for the International Institute for Sustainable Development.   Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is the shiny toy in climate change mitigation spaces these days, expected to draw all eyes at COP28. The technology proposes to reduce emissions by capturing carbon dioxide from industrial processes and injecting it deep underground.   Many oil and gas producing countries, such as the US and Canada, are looking to CCS to reduce emissions from production, while coal-reliant nations such China and India are exploring the feasibility of fitting coal-fired power plants with the technology.   Despite the substantial interest that has been stirred up around the technology, many questions remain about its feasibility, persistently high costs, and track record to date. What is the current status of CCS technology and why doesn’t it live up to its reputation as a definitive solution?   What is CCS?   CCS technology aims to capture emissions at a large source, before they are released into the atmosphere. This is different from Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) which focuses on retroactively withdrawing CO2 already in the atmosphere through means such as planting trees or using direct air capture technologies.   When CCS is used in fossil fuel production, it aims to capture upstream emissions – those created during the extraction and processing of the fuels – but does not reduce the bulk of emissions that are produced downstream, when the fuel is burned.   It also requires significant amounts of energy to operate the CCS technology itself, leading to more emissions if that energy is from fossil fuels. In fact, critical analysis of CCS technology finds that CCS can in some cases produce more emissions than it sequesters.   Studies that try to show the promise of CCS technology often don’t include a full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of the CCS process, thereby missing the full picture of the technology’s true inefficiency.   While CCS is currently one of the only means to address emissions in hard-to-abate sectors such as the cement industry, fossil fuel energy with CCS is outcompeted by renewable energy. CCS in the fossil fuel sector is proposed as a pathway to allow continued expansion of fossil fuel production.   Is CCS technologically feasible at scale?   CCS has developed at a snail’s pace over the past few decades. Despite decades in development, there are only 30 commercial CCS projects globally, capturing a total of around 42.5 MtCO2/year, or less than 0.2% of the necessary emissions reduction needed to close the emissions gap by 2030.   This falls dramatically short of the IEA’s previous projection that we would reach 300 MtCO2/year of storage by 2020. A majority of the 149 CCS projects that were projected to be storing carbon by 2020 globally have been either cancelled or put on an indefinite hold, because of incredibly high costs and technological challenges.   Is it possible to rapidly scale-up CCS in the fossil fuel sector? The IPCC assessed this potential, and found that there are big challenges associated with sequestering lots of CO2 (more than 3.8 GtCO2/year by 2050). In other words, the IPCC indicated that there are serious feasibility concerns over the large-scale deployment of CCS in the fossil fuel sector and that we ought to limit our expectations.   Despite this, many emissions reductions models still design scenarios with fossil fuel CCS playing a much larger role (up to 10GtCO2/year by 2050) to compensate for slower declines in fossil fuel production and consumption. But achieving these levels of carbon storage would imply building the equivalent of the world’s biggest current carbon capture facility – capturing about 7MtCO2/year – every week until 2050.   Moreover, the potential for safe geological storage of the CO2 underground might be more limited than expected. Analysis of financial, contractual, and institutional barriers of long-term CO2 sequestration indicates that global use of CCS technologies is unlikely to be able to store more than 5 GtCO2/year underground by 2050.   The big distances between the emitting facilities are located (where the carbon would be captured) and the appropriate geological repositories often constitute a barrier to implementation. Transporting the CO2 requires significant investment in pipelines and transportation infrastructure.   Currently, it is common for the fossil fuel industry to avoid the need for transportation by injecting the CO2 into ageing wells on-site, which in turn increases pressure and helps extract more oil through “enhanced oil recovery” (EOR). The irony is, CCS is supposed to help reduce emissions, and EOR ultimately generates more carbon emissions by producing more oil.   Is CCS Cost Competitive?   The costs of CCS vary depending on: the industrial process that it’s applied to and how concentrated the CO2 is; how far the CO2 is transported; and where it is stored. CO2 capture costs are projected to range from CAD 27–48/tCO2 to CAD 50–150/tCO2. But these costs estimates are mostly drawn from modelling; there are too few projects that have been operational long enough to give a good sense of long-term costs.   Despite decades of development of the technology, the costs of CCS in the oil and gas sector have been slow to fall. This is because the technology design is complex, with many different components, making innovation slow. It also needs to be highly customized for different applications; CCS in a refinery is much different than CCS in cement production, for instance. While technologies such as solar PV and batteries for electric vehicles have experienced dramatic cost reductions as they reached economies of scale, it’s unlikely that the same will happen for CCS.   Because of its high cost, CCS in the fossil fuel sector continues to rely heavily on government subsidies in order to be economically viable. At the same time, oil and gas companies globally are investing very little of their own money in CCS or renewable energy, spending less than 1% of their capital expenditures on clean energy investment in 2020.   In determining cost competitiveness for emissions reductions, CCS in the energy sector should be judged against alternative energies that can reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels. The IPCC finds that CCS in the energy sector is among the most expensive and least effective mitigation technologies in the near-term.   Closer Look: CCS in Coal-fired Power Generation   As of November 2023, four coal-fired plants with CCS are operational worldwide: two in China, one in the United States, and one in Canada. The development of CCS technology for coal power has been particularly slow, with only one plant operational as of 2021.   China's two CCS facilities, launched in 2021 and 2023, capture a combined 0.65 Mtpa of CO2 annually. The Petra Nova plant in the United States, operational since 2016, was temporarily shut down in 2020 due to declining oil prices and reopened in September 2023. This facility, used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), has historically not achieved its target of 1.4 Mtpa of captured emissions.   Canada’s Boundary Dam CCS facility, operational since 2014 in Saskatchewan, had an original target to capture 90% of the plant’s emissions but captures only about 50% on average.   Collectively, these four CCS facilities represent billions of dollars of investment and capture less than 0.02% of the coal industry's total emissions. In India, the national government has not announced any policy support for CCS, but there is emerging interest in the technology from power producers.   Closer Look: CCS in Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector   Canada currently has seven operational CCS projects, mostly in the oil and gas sector. These projects capture only about 0.5% of the country's total emissions, and the majority of the carbon captured is used to enable further extraction through enhanced oil recovery.   Despite its limited efficacy, CCS is being touted as the central emissions reduction solution by Canadian oil and gas proponents such as the Pathways Alliance, and has received extensive financial support from governments in Canada. The federal government has committed at least CAD 9.1 billion, in addition to CAD 3.8 billion from the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, with Alberta set to invest more. This level of investment outpaces support offered by the 2022 U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).   This public investment in CCS is risky for taxpayers, and takes away from funds available to support other, more cost-effective emission reduction strategies. Moreover, investing in CCS for oil and gas prolongs production and reliance on the fuels, without addressing the vast majority of emissions that are created when those fuels are burned downstream. Not to mention that these supports for CCS in fossil fuel production constitute subsidies under the World Trade Organization’s definition and contradict Canada’s commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.   What role will fossil fuel CCS play in limiting warming to 1.5C?   In order to limit warming to 1.5C, the IPCC finds that the production of oil and gas needs to decline by 65% by 2050. IISD research further shows that selected IPCC 1.5C scenarios which only rely on feasible levels of CCS, indicate that the world should be producing 30% less oil and gas compared by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. Coal production needs to decline by nearly 80% already this decade to align with the 1.5C target.   These findings are echoed by the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Net Zero Emissions scenario which concludes that there is no room for any new fossil fuel extraction projects.   Extraction and use of fossil fuels from mines and fields that are already in operation or under development today is more than enough to meet global demand under 1.5C pathways; there is no need to develop any more oil and gas fields.   In addition to the IPCC scenarios, IISD analysis shows that 1.5C pathways from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), UNEP Production Gap Report, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and various other authoritative intergovernmental organizations and energy consultancies all feature such steep declines in oil and gas production that developing any fossil fuels extraction activities from new fields or mines would generate emissions in excess of what is necessary to limit warming to 1.5C.   Closer Look: CCS and the push for phase-out of “unabated” fossil fuel production at COP28   The topic of phasing out fossil fuels promises to be a central part of the discussion at COP 28 in Dubai. The European Union, among others, is calling for a phase out of ‘unabated’ fossil fuels. The language of ‘abatement’ leaves a loophole for continued use of fossil fuels as long as a technology to capture the emissions from production is used.   The technological and economic feasibility of CCS is central in the conversation around ‘abated’ production. Given the challenges that the technology has faced, limiting its use and efficacy to date, it is clear that CCS is not able to abate emissions from fossil fuels sufficiently. Given the absence of other deep and fully developed emissions reductions technologies, abated production is not possible.   Moreover, this loophole is being used to push for prolonging and expanding fossil fuel production and use, with the assumption that CCS and other emissions reductions technologies will suffice. This is problematic, given that the majority of emissions are produced at the end uses of fossil fuels which are not address through CCS. Countries are already planning to produce double the amount of fossil fuels as would be needed under a 1.5C scenario in 2030, exceeding expected global demand, a gap which CCS will not address.   Conclusion   Despite the hype, the science behind CCS technology doesn’t measure up. The technology is incredibly expensive, captures relatively minimal amounts of CO2, and is heavily reliant on large government subsidies. In the coal industry specifically, CCS has demonstrated a particularly poor performance, with a sluggish rollout that further underscores the inefficiency of the technology.   Worryingly, some fossil fuel companies have been trying to use CCS technology as a justification for a further expansion of production, which is incompatible with global climate targets.   Heavy reliance on CCS in the energy sector is misguided as renewable energy has seen dramatic cost reductions that make it more and more economical. Discussions of ‘abated’ fossil fuels at COP28 and beyond should take a closer look at the technology behind the promise.   http://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/unpacking-carbon-capture-storage-technology http://www.ciel.org/reports/beyond-abatement-securing-a-full-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels-at-cop-28/ http://www.ciel.org/reports/deep-trouble-the-risks-of-offshore-carbon-capture-and-storage-november-2023/ http://climateanalytics.org/press-releases/carbon-capture-and-storage-could-unleash-86-billion-tonne-carbon-bomb http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/heavy-dependence-carbon-capture-and-storage-highly-economically-damaging-says-oxford-report http://priceofoil.org/2023/11/30/ccs-data/ http://www.iisd.org/articles/press-release/world-governments-hit-record-high-usd-17-trillion-fossil-fuel-support http://www.iisd.org/inside-cop-28   http://www.carbonbombs.org/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/global-agreement-at-cop28-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels-is-vital-to-prevent-a-climate-and-human-rights-catastrophe/ http://fossilfueltreaty.org/european-parliament-2023 http://fossilfueltreaty.org http://350.org/press-release/powering-up-for-climate-justice-350-org-launches-report-on-global-renewable-energy-target/ http://climatenetwork.org/updates/press-releases/ http://climateanalytics.org/press-releases/oil-and-gas-majors-could-have-paid-for-their-share-of-climate-loss-and-damage-and-still-earned-10-trillion-usd-new-report http://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/30/united-nations-climate-change-conference-cop28 http://actionaid.org/publications/2023/how-finance-flows-banks-fuelling-climate-crisis   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/earth2019s-vital-signs-reach-new-record-extremes-in-2023 http://www.reuters.com/business/environment/ahead-cop28-research-shows-world-far-behind-climate-fight-2023-11-29/ http://www.msf.org/cop28-more-failure-not-option-vulnerable-communities http://www.lancetcountdown.org/2023-report/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ http://tinyurl.com/3v7myx4b http://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/global-witness-and-cop28-people-not-polluters/#global-witnesss-cop28-policy-positions http://influencemap.org/ http://billmckibben.substack.com/p/a-corrupted-cop http://climate-reporting.org/stories/ http://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/climate-equality-a-planet-for-the-99-621551/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-environment/annual-thematic-reports   Why Carbon Capture is Not a Climate Solution - Center for International Environmental Law   The world is confronting a climate emergency. Avoiding climate catastrophe requires immediate and dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are possible only with a significant investment of resources in proven mitigation measures, beginning with eliminating fossil fuel use and halting deforestation.   Carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) will not address these core drivers of the climate crisis or meaningfully reduce GHG emissions, and should not distract from real climate solutions. CCS and CCUS technologies are not only unnecessary for the rapid transformation required to keep warming under 1.5°C, they delay that transformation, providing the fossil fuel industry with a license to continue polluting.   The unproven scalability of CCS technologies and their prohibitive costs mean they cannot play any significant role in the rapid reduction of global emissions necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C. Despite the existence of the technology for decades and billions of dollars in government subsidies to date, deployment of CCS at scale still faces insurmountable challenges of feasibility, effectiveness, and expense.   In 2021, the 1,500 member-organizations of Climate Action Network (CAN) International adopted a shared position statement that the largest network of climate organizations worldwide “does not consider currently envisioned CCS applications as proven sustainable climate solutions.” The organizations warned that CCS “risks distracting from the need to take concerted action across multiple sectors in the near-term to dramatically reduce emissions.”   Accordingly, CAN urged that “all government subsidies, loans, grants, tax credit, incentives, and financial support for fossil fuels and technologies that use or otherwise support the continued use of fossil fuels, including CCS, should be phased out as soon as possible.”   * The Universal Rights Network notes with concern that Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies were cited in a section of the most recent IPCC report.   "The key section of the IPCC report, which ignited the controversy, was fiercely fought over by scientists and governments up until the last moments before the document was finalised. The handful of mentions of CDR in the final 36-page summary for policymakers – which distils the key messages and is compiled by scientists alongside government representatives from any UN member that wants to take part – were only inserted after hours of desperate wrangling.   Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries were most insistent that CDR and CCS should be included and emphasised. In the end, nine references to CDR were left in the summary, and several more to CCS. “Saudi Arabia.. tried to take out references to renewable energy and tried to insist that references to carbon capture should be in there instead of, or at least as well as, renewables.”   But many scientists, campaigners and green experts are unhappy with the references. They fear that giving the impression there are viable options for removing carbon dioxide might engender a false sense of security. Most CDR technologies are unproven, are likely to be limited in scope, take years to develop and will cost large amounts of money.   Lili Fuhr, the director of the climate and energy programme at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: “We need to challenge the idea that we have to do less now, because we can do more later, with technofixes. This is a dangerous idea.”   Growing renewables must replace fossil fuels far quicker to curb climate crisis, warns WWF   WWF responds to the IEA’s annual market report on renewables - Renewables 2023 - which shows that cleaner sources of energy are being rolled out faster than any other time in recent decades. The world added 50% more renewable capacity in 2023 than it did in the previous year, with solar PV accounting for three-quarters of additions worldwide.   However, the world is not yet on track to triple renewable capacity by 2030, which was agreed at COP28.   Dean Cooper, WWF Global Energy Lead, said: “Renewable energy generation is increasing fast but not fast enough. We will not avert climate catastrophe while fossil fuels continue to be burned. We must phase out coal, oil and gas and replace them with cleaner and cheaper renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.”   “Countries agreeing to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ and to triple renewable energy generation at the UN COP28 climate talks was significant. Those who want to see a livable planet should increase pressure on their government to convert words into action by demanding they urgently transform their energy systems. That means no delays and no loopholes. It must involve the full phase out of all fossil fuels and a move to 100% renewable energy.”   “Dangerous distractions, such as large-scale carbon capture utilization and storage and so-called ‘transitional fuels’, are no replacement for the massive scaling-up of proven and affordable renewable energy technology. The sooner and more decisively we act, the sooner people and nature can reap the benefits of a cleaner, safer and more stable future, including cost savings, new jobs, cleaner air, and the recovery of nature.”   http://climateactiontracker.org/press/COP28-must-focus-on-oil-and-gas-phase-out-not-distractions-like-CCS/ http://climateanalytics.org/latest/at-least-15-tw-of-new-wind-and-solar-capacity-needed-each-year-by-2030-to-meet-15c-limit-sustainably/ http://climateanalytics.org/publications/2023/2030-targets-aligned-to-15c-evidence-from-the-latest-global-pathways/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?10498441/WWF-responds-to-IEA-Renewables-2023-report http://www.reuters.com/business/environment/study-says-renewables-must-ramp-up-5-times-faster-avert-thunbergs-climate-cliff-2023-06-13/ http://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/245295/without-fully-implementing-net-zero-pledges-world/ http://zerotracker.net/analysis/net-zero-stocktake-2023 http://www.ciel.org/news/end-the-carbon-capture-of-climate-policy/ http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Confronting-the-Myth-of-Carbon-Free-Fossil-Fuels.pdf http://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/world-cannot-meet-climate-targets-relying-carbon-capture-and-storage/ http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/the-carbon-capture-scam/
	People starving in North Korea as Government conducts nuclear military tests by Elizabeth Salmon Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea   Mar. 2023   The Government of the DPRK needs to take measures to provide food to those in need, as people starve. (OHCHR)   Unprecedented self-isolation imposed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has further aggravated the suffering of its people, a UN expert warned.   In a report to the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Elizabeth Salmon, urged the international community to pay urgent attention to the people's deteriorating access to food, medicine and health care in the country.   "People froze to death during the cold spell in January this year," Salmon said. "People had no money to heat their homes or they were even forced to live on the streets because they had sold their house as a last resort."   The UN expert recalled that in response to COVID-19, the DPRK introduced international border control measures in January 2020. Since then, most international staff from the UN, humanitarian agencies and diplomatic missions have been unable to return to the country. She also noted that the number of escapees arriving in the Republic of Korea had decreased significantly.   “I am seriously concerned about the impact of three years of border closures on the people of the DPRK," she said, "especially women working in informal markets, people living in poverty, the elderly, the homeless and kkotjebi (homeless children).”   The Special Rapporteur warned that violence against women, already rampant, could worsen as women lose economic power. "Women have lost the means to provide for their families as market activities have dramatically declined," she said, adding that the international community has been unable to provide humanitarian assistance.   The expert urged the Government of the DPRK to take measures to provide food to those most in need and to seek assistance from the international community to fulfil the fundamental right of all people to be free from hunger.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/03/north-koreas-unparalleled-self-isolation-must-cease-un-expert   Mar. 2023   Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.   The Korean Peninsula witnessed increased security tensions in 2022. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued its missile programmes, including the record high number of testing of intercontinental and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The United States and the Republic of Korea also carried out several regular and specialized land, sea and air military exercises.   On 8 September, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea amended its law on Nuclear Forces allowing for automatic nuclear strikes in case of the absence of the command-and-control system following an attack.   There has been no progress with the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, with talks now stalled for nearly three years. Despite the increased tensions amid missile tests and military drills, both the Republic of Korea and the United States continue to reiterate that they are ready to talk with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea without preconditions.   The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has stated that hostile policies against it must stop. The near complete isolation of the country combined with a lack of consensus at the UN Security Council and increased military posturing has prevented any meaningful progress on establishing peace and security on the Korean Peninsula.   The Special Rapporteur is concerned that with the current tensions and lack of functioning communication channels with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, any security misstep could trigger significant escalation with drastic consequences for human rights, including the right to life.   The Special Rapporteur urges all parties to ensure the revival of diplomatic engagement, while highlighting that sustainable peace on the Korean Peninsula can only be achieved if human rights are central to any diplomatic processes.   COVID-19 quarantine restrictions and its human rights implications   The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been in near complete isolation from the international community for the past three years, and there are no clear indications as to when it will reopen its borders and re-engage. United Nations officials, humanitarian agencies and most of the international staff of the diplomatic missions have not been able to return to the country due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.   In January 2023, a five-day lockdown was imposed in Pyongyang reportedly due to increasing cases of respiratory illness. In October 2022, the country reportedly administered two doses of the vaccine to its population aged 17 to 65 years old. Vaccination was prioritized for people living in Pyongyang and in regions bordering China. The country has not accepted any vaccines under the COVAX facility. In June 2022, Gavi, the vaccine alliance, reported that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had accepted an offer of vaccines from China.   The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the prolonged COVID-19 border restrictions have forced the already vulnerable population including women and girls - who had limited access to food, medicines, healthcare and livelihoods - to the brink. Access to food, medicines and health care remains a priority concern for the Special Rapporteur.   It was estimated that by the end of 2021, 60 per cent of the population was food insecure as compared to 40 per cent prior to the pandemic. From 2019 to 2021, 41.6 % of the population suffered from malnourishment.   Reports suggested that people can only afford to eat one meal a day, and that eating three meals a day has become a luxury for most families. The Special Rapporteur has received reports of people dying from hunger during the period of COVID-19 restrictions, and of homeless people dying during cold spells.   There have been reports of sharp spikes in food prices during the past year, including corn and cooking oil, with rural areas particularly vulnerable to disruptions of supply chains. Reportedly this year's harvest is likely to decrease compared to previous years due to extreme drought, heavy rains, lack of agricultural inputs and fertilizers, and disruptions to farming caused by the COVID-19 outbreak in May 2022.   Since 2021, the Workers Party of Korea, which is the ruling party, has discussed the food crisis and agricultural problems several times, suggesting the seriousness of the food situation in the country. Reportedly, the Government has been intervening in the market to control food prices and has provided limited subsidized grain through the public distribution system to those in dire need.   Reports were also received that, recently, the Government had reduced its daily food rations per soldier from the previous 620 grams to 580 grams, pointing to shortfalls in government food supplies.   In September 2022, China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resumed some overland rail trade with strict quarantine measures in place, which might have helped alleviate some of the reported food and medicine shortages.   The Special Rapporteur is of the view that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will need international support to help tackle the prolonged food crisis. She appeals to the Government to put to one side political considerations and cooperate with the international community to help address the alarming food situation which has already, according to some sources, led to starvation.   Ongoing COVID-19 restrictions have further exacerbated already dire shortcomings in healthcare provision and accessibility to medicines. The Special Rapporteur has received reports that local hospitals are unable to perform simple medical procedures due to a lack of basic medicines, anaesthesia, disinfectants and IV drips.   In August 2022, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea enacted three new laws related to medical supplies, which provide for strict punishments for illegally producing and selling medicines. The imposition of harsh penalties for the illicit selling of medicines has limited their supply in the marketplace, which people have come to increasingly rely upon.   Reportedly, since January 2023, provincial and municipal hospitals have been discharging all patients, apart from those on emergency wards and/or suffering from severe diseases, due to lack of fuel for heating. Patients have also reportedly been required to bring their own medicines, medical supplies, and fuel to receive treatment at hospitals, limiting access to healthcare to those with the means to pay..   http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5265-situation-human-rights-democratic-peoples-republic-korea-report http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2024/06/turk-addresses-un-security-council-open-debate-situation-democratic-peoples Visit the related web page
	View more stories