Climate change is happening faster than we believed only two years ago. Continuing with business as usual almost certainly means dangerous, perhaps catastrophic, climate change during the course of this century. This is the most important challenge for this generation of politicians.
I am now very concerned about the prospects for Copenhagen. The negotiations are dangerously close to deadlock at the moment — and such a deadlock may go far beyond a simple negotiating stand-off that we can fix next year. It risks being an acrimonious collapse, perhaps on the basis of a deep split between the developed and developing countries. The world cannot afford such a disastrous outcome.
So I hope that as world leaders peer over the edge of the abyss in New York and Pittsburgh this week, we will collectively conclude that we have to play an active part in driving the negotiations forward.
Now is not the time for playing poker. Now is the time for putting offers on the table, offers at the outer limits of our political constraints. That is exactly what Europe has done, and will continue to do.
Part of the answer lies in identifying the heart of the potential bargain that might yet bring us to a successful result, and it is here, I think, that the world leaders gathering here in New York can make a real difference.
The first part of the bargain is that all developed countries need to clarify their plans on mid-term emissions reductions and show the necessary leadership, not least in line with our responsibilities for past emissions. If we want to achieve at least an 80 percent reduction by 2050, developed countries must strive to achieve the necessary collective 25 percent to 40 percent reductions by 2020. The EU is ready to go from 20 percent to 30 percent if others make comparable efforts.
Second, developed countries must now explicitly recognize that we will all have to play a significant part in helping to finance mitigation action by developing countries. Our estimate is that by 2020, developing countries will need roughly an additional 100 billion euros (US$150 billion) a year to tackle climate change. Part of it will be financed from economically advanced developing countries themselves. The biggest share should come from the carbon market — if we have the courage to set up an ambitious global scheme.
But some will need to come in flows of public finance from developed to developing countries, perhaps from 22 billion euros to 50 billion euros a year by 2020.
Depending on the outcome of international burden-sharing discussions, the EU’s share of that could be anything from 10 percent to 30 percent, that is, up to 15 billion euros a year.
We will need to be ready, in other words, to make a significant contribution in the medium term, and also to look at short term “start-up funding” for developing countries in the next year or so. I look forward to discussing this with EU leaders when we meet at the end of next month.
So we need to signal our readiness to talk finance this week. The counterpart is that developing countries, at least the economically advanced among them, have to be much clearer on what they are ready to do to mitigate carbon emissions as part of an international agreement.
They are already putting domestic measures in place to limit carbon emissions, but they clearly need to step up such efforts — particularly the most advanced developing countries. They understandably stress that the availability of carbon finance from the rich world is a prerequisite to mitigation action on their part, as indeed agreed to in Bali. But the developed world will have nothing to finance if there is no commitment to action.
We have less than 80 calendar days to go until Copenhagen. As with the Bonn meeting last month, the draft text contains some 250 pages: a feast of alternative options, a forest of square brackets. If we don’t sort this out, it risks becoming the longest and most global suicide note in history.
This week in New York and Pittsburgh promises to be a pivotal one, if only for revealing how much global leaders are ready to invest in these negotiations and to push for a successful outcome. The choice is simple: no money, no deal. But no action? Then no money!
Copenhagen is a critical occasion to shift, collectively, to an emissions trajectory that keeps global warming below 2°C. So the fightback has to begin this week in New York.
Jose Manuel Barroso is president of the European Commission.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers