Before the Copenhagen climate-change summit two years ago, the two of us sat together in Cape Town to listen to five African farmers from different countries, four of whom were women, tell us how climate change was undermining their livelihoods. Each explained how floods and drought, and the lack of regular seasons to sow and reap, were outside their normal experience. Their fears are shared by subsistence farmers and indigenous people worldwide — the people bearing the brunt of climate shocks, though they played no part in causing them.
Now, two years later, we are in Durban, where South Africa is hosting this year’s climate-change conference (COP17) and the -situation for poor people in Africa and elsewhere has deteriorated even further. In its latest report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that it is virtually certain that, in global terms, hot days have become hotter and occur more often; indeed, they have increased in frequency by a factor of 10 in most regions of the world.
Moreover, the brutal paradox of climate change is that heavy precipitation is occurring more often as well, increasing the risk of flooding. Since 2003, East Africa has had the eight warmest years on record, which is no doubt contributing to the severe famine that now afflicts 13 million people in the Horn of Africa.
These are the consequences that a mere 1?C of warming above pre-industrial levels has wrought. The UN Environment Program’s just published report Bridging the Emissions Gap shows that over the course of this century, warming will likely rise to 4?C unless we take stronger action to cut emissions. Yet the latest evidence demonstrates that we are not acting — the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Report 2011 reveals that carbon dioxide emissions have rebounded to a record high.
We are alarmed that expectations for COP17 are so low. Where is the global leadership that must respond urgently? We desperately need a global deal.
At the heart of this deal is the preservation of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is not a perfect instrument. It does too little to cut global emissions, and it requires too few countries to cut their emissions growth. However, it is part of international law, and that is vital.
Climate change is a global problem: If countries are not confident that others are addressing it, they will not feel an imperative to act themselves. So, having a legal framework with clear and common rules to which all countries are committed is critically important — and the only assurance we have that action will be taken to protect the most vulnerable.
The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of next year. So the EU and the other Kyoto parties (the US never ratified the agreement, and the Kyoto Protocol’s terms asked little of China, India and other emerging powers) must commit to a second commitment period, to ensure that this legal framework is maintained.
At the same time, all countries must acknowledge that extending the lifespan of the Kyoto Protocol will not solve the problem of climate change, and that a new or additional legal framework that covers all countries is needed. The Durban meeting must agree to initiate negotiations toward this end — with a view to concluding a new legal instrument by 2015 at the latest.
All of this is not only possible, but necessary, because the transition to a low-carbon, climate--resilient economy makes economic, social and environmental sense. The problem is that making it happen requires political will, which, unfortunately, seems in short supply.
Climate change is a matter of justice. The richest countries caused the problem, but it is the world’s poorest who are already suffering from its effects. In Durban, the international community must commit to righting that wrong.
Political leaders must think inter-generationally. They need to imagine the world of 2050, with its 9 billion people, and take the right decisions now to ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a liveable world.
Former Irish president Mary Robinson is president of the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, is a Nobel Peace Laureate.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Since COVID-19 broke out in Taiwan, there has been a fair amount of news regarding discrimination and “witch hunts” against medical personnel, people under self-quarantine and other targets, such as the students of a school where an infection was discovered. Quarantine breakers are almost certainly on the loose and it is only natural for people to be vigilant. One in Chiayi was found by accident at a traffic stop because his helmet was not fastened. However, those who follow the rules by quarantining themselves should be encouraged to keep up the good work in a difficult situation, instead of being
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator-at-large Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) has said that there is a huge difference between Chinese military aircraft circling Taiwan along the edges of its airspace and invading Taiwan’s airspace. He also said that whether it is US or Chinese aircraft flying along or encircling Taiwan’s airspace, there is no legal basis to say that such actions imply a clear provocation of Taiwan, and asked the Ministry of National Defense not to mislead the public. People who hear this might think that it is not a very Taiwanese thing to say. US military activity in the vicinity of Taiwan
As the COVID-19 pandemic spins out of control, many parts of the world are experiencing shortages of medical masks and other protective equipment. I am studying in Washington state, which at the time of writing is the US state that has suffered the largest number of deaths from the novel coronavirus. The week before last, UW Medicine — an organization that includes the University of Washington School of Medicine and associated medical centers and clinics — sent its volunteers an e-mail asking the public to make masks and donate them to hospitals. Attached to the message was a mask donation