The lesson the world is learning the hard way from the financial crisis is that there is only one boat and we are all in it. To stay afloat, we need rules tough enough to stop systemic risks becoming systemic collapses. This lesson is as true for the environment as it is for the economy.
A key battle in the campaign to build an effective system of global rules will shortly take place in Durban, South Africa, where the UN climate negotiations reopen at the end of this month. The International Energy Agency has set the scene, with the timely warning in its new World Energy Outlook that we are way off track to avoid dangerous climate change and that the window for effective action is closing fast.
It is fashionable to argue that a new climate treaty, based on the Kyoto architecture of legally binding carbon caps, is dead. We should, on this view, give Kyoto a decent burial and switch to plan B. This turns out to be a looser arrangement in which governments make voluntary pledges to each other. Its advocates often call themselves “realists.”
The case for voluntarism was first put by those who want to try less hard to deal with climate change. It has subsequently attracted support from academics and other commentators whose concern — indeed alarm — about the climate is unquestionable. They may be desperate rather than cynical, but they tend to know more about the climate than they do about diplomacy. The problem is in the politics, not the architecture.
The choice between what needs to be done, but looks impossible, and what can be done, but is clearly not enough, is as old as history. It lay behind the struggle between former British prime minister Winston Churchill and Lord Halifax as they faced Adolf Hitler’s tanks on the Channel coast. NATO’s success in Libya was conducted against a barrage of predictions that it would lead to years of stalemate. When there is no alternative, realism lies in expanding the limits of the possible, not in nourishing the delusion that something else might help.
There really is no plan B for the climate. A voluntary framework will not be enough to keep us within the 2°C limit of manageable climate change. Unmanageable climate change will precipitate systemic collapses, including food and water security. Success or failure will depend on governments convincing investors that they are determined to enact the policies necessary to drive private capital toward a low-carbon future. In the boardroom, a voluntary pledge from a government sounds rather like “maybe.” That’s why in the UK we have set legally binding carbon budgets through the Climate Change Act.
If a legally binding approach, including a round of post-Kyoto commitments, falls off the table in Durban, most would see this as giving up on climate change. They would be right. The Kyoto protocol is arguably the EU’s greatest diplomatic achievement. It inspired the world’s largest single market to take big steps toward a carbon-neutral energy system, making our economies stronger and more resilient on the way. Europeans should be proud of this approach, not embarrassed by it, even if some of our global partners are not yet ready to embrace it.
It is true that the current cycle of Kyoto commitments only covers industrialized countries and that some of those outside the EU are reluctant to take on new commitments. Many rightly argue that an effective regime must bind all major economies, not only the EU and those in its orbit, but we do not need this all at once any more than we needed to include everyone from the start to make the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the forerunner of the WTO, work.
Durban needs to send a clear signal that the world is moving rapidly in this direction and that, as soon as countries become sufficiently prosperous, they will accept binding caps. The deal that is both available and essential must include a second phase of Kyoto commitments for those willing to accept them, plus an unambiguous “commitment to commit” by 2020 from the other major players. This would at last unblock the path to a binding regime with full participation.
Voluntary pledges alone will not keep the global economy open, drive trade and investment, maintain financial stability, or protect peoples against food, water and energy insecurity. If we cannot summon the will to make hard promises on climate change — the first challenge we have ever faced that will affect literally everyone — it will become much harder to do so on everything else.
It’s no surprise that such a complex enterprise is taking time to accomplish. The great achievements in the continuing effort to secure our mutual interests by agreeing global rules — the multilateral trade system, the regimes for arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, the European single market, the international criminal court — all took time and many steps to bring to maturity.
True, on this occasion we can’t afford to take as long as some of these projects did and we cannot wait for conflict to concentrate our minds, but there is no fundamental obstacle. The technology and capital are available. The framework we need is not only compatible with the economic needs of the major economies, but essential to securing them.
Arnold Toynbee warned that technology was giving us the power to destroy ourselves. If we could see through the fog of current events, we might discern a fork ahead. One path points toward chronic insecurity and conflict; the other offers a prospect of cooperation and mutual prosperity.
The choice between these two paths will be foreshadowed at Durban.
John Ashton is the UK Foreign Office’s special representative for climate change.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with