What is the Copenhagen climate change summit?
The UN meeting is the deadline for thrashing out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, with the aim of preventing dangerous global warming. It will run for two weeks from Dec. 7 and is the latest in a series that trace their origins to the 1992 Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro.
What’s the bottom line?
Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2ºC mark, cuts of 25 percent to 40 percent relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80 percent to 95 percent by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.
Who should make the cuts?
That is a crunch issue. The industrialized nations such as the US, the UK, Japan and others have emitted by far the most carbon and still emit vast amounts per person, so have a responsibility to make the deep cuts scientists demand. But emissions from emerging economies such as China and India are surging, and any global limit on emissions needs curbs on those nations, too. Yet, per person, those nations have small carbon footprints and millions of people in deep poverty. So China, India and others can argue they need to be allowed to continue to pollute for a while as they improve their citizens’ lives. Balancing the responsibilities for cuts is a key part of the negotiations.
Who is going to pay?
The other crunch issue. There is an argument that, in the long term, a low-carbon economy will be cheaper than a fossil-fueled one. But time is short and there will be costs in the near term. All agree that the poorest nations need urgent help. Citizens in places from Haiti to Sudan to Bangladesh have done virtually nothing to pollute the atmosphere, but are bearing the worst impacts of floods and droughts. Richer nations will need to pay billions. It will also cost a lot to build the global clean energy infrastructure essential to staunch the carbon from coal and gas power stations. For the fast emerging economies, such as India, the ideal is to go straight to renewables and perhaps nuclear power. Again, rich nations will be expected to pick up the tab. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the EU have suggested US$100 billion a year from 2020 would cover the global climate change bill. But estimates from development groups reach up to four times that amount. Finding a figure that all nations accept is the second key part of the negotiations.
What about carbon trading?
In theory, buying permits to pollute from those who can cut their emissions most cheaply is attractive. From one perspective, however, this kind of offsetting simply looks like paying poorer people to clear up the mess left by the rich, who can then continue to pollute. Also, if carbon trading is to cut real emissions, the cap set on the market has to be tight and, to date, political imperatives have overridden those of the planet. Nonetheless, carbon trading will remain at the heart of any treaty.
Is stopping deforestation an easier way to cut emissions?
Stopping deforestation is, in principle, cheap and simple: do not cut them down. But paying people — via carbon credits — not to fell trees soon becomes complex. Who really owns the trees? Were they going to be chopped down anyway? And how do you verify what actually happens?
Finding a solution to these issues is one of the strongest hopes for the Copenhagen summit.
What are the prospects for a Copenhagen deal?
Negotiations held last week in Barcelona were grim: All now acknowledge that no legal deal is possible in Copenhagen. A miracle is needed for a triumph. Most likely is a hopeful fudge in which all parties remain on speaking terms and seal the deal next year.
A total collapse would leave 20 years’ of negotiations in tatters. It is also unlikely, but not as unlikely as a miracle.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry