In December, world leaders are to meet in Paris for the UN Climate Change Conference, which is expected to produce a new agreement to tackle global warming. However, in the run-up to the conference, heads of state and ministers will meet at various other related events. Having attended countless summits, we can attest that, if these other meetings are correctly prepared and heads of state engage meaningfully in them, the prospects of success in Paris could be improved.
One such meeting in particular could be decisive: this week’s biannual summit in Brussels between the EU and the Community of Latin America and the Caribbean States (CELAC). Efforts by Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean have set the groundwork for the world’s strongest bi-regional partnership on climate change. Leaders in both regions have declared their commitment to holding the rise in global temperature to below 2oC and to achieving legally binding outcomes in Paris.
The EU and CELAC heads of state can — and should — forge a close alliance and capitalize on favorable political conditions to advance a progressive climate agenda, one that mandates their negotiators to push for a fair, equitable and ambitious agreement in December. Together, both regions represent nearly one-third of the 195 parties that have signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and account for about 20 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Given soaring climate-related economic costs in Europe and Latin America, both sides have much to gain (and save) from a global regime that significantly reduces emissions and strengthens resilience to climate risks.
Illustration: Mountain People
This common sense of purpose is reflected in our regions’ policies. Latin America and the Caribbean are taking concerted action to contribute to bringing down global emissions and could do much more with funding and technology transfers from developed countries. Brazil, for example, has drastically reduced deforestation in the Amazon — a major contribution. Chile is on track to reach its goal of producing 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. And in 2012, Mexico enacted a climate-change law that aims to reduce emissions by 30 percent below their business-as-usual level by 2020, and by 50 percent by 2050.
For its part, the EU is offering the strongest pledge yet for the Paris agreement: a reduction in domestic greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 40 percent relative to their level in 1990, by 2030. This is in line with the EU’s long-term goal of reducing emissions by between 80 and 95 percent (again, relative to the 1990 level) by 2050.
The EU-CELAC summit can also benefit from diplomatic efforts within CELAC, which includes all of the region’s 33 countries. A regional effort led by Brazil and Chile is promoting dialogue among CELAC countries to build trust, with the goal of identifying common positions for the UN climate negotiations.
CELAC has emphasized that a new global climate-change deal should treat adaptation and mitigation in a balanced manner. In keeping with its commitment to the 2oC cap on the rise in global temperature, it not only supports a legally binding agreement, but also calls for wealthy countries to meet their promises to provide developing countries with US$100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020.
Wealthy countries that have not complied with the emissions-reduction commitments enshrined in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol owe this debt to the planet. CELAC seeks rules to ensure the transparency and verification of countries’ climate actions, and calls on developed countries to increase their technology transfer and capacity-building efforts to support its member countries.
Latin American and the Caribbean countries can also use the Brussels summit to reassure the EU that it is a valued partner. It can call on Europe to provide greater predictability of financial flows and alignment on climate and development objectives, especially to reduce inequality and poverty, boost clean energy and build sustainable urban transport and other infrastructure.
Following the difficult climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, we understand why some European leaders may have lowered expectations for the Paris talks. They are understandably reluctant to expend too much political capital by calling for a far-reaching deal. However, at a time when concern about global warming among citizens in both regions is growing, this is no time for indecisiveness.
European leaders should boldly show that they are committed to an ambitious outcome in Paris, and that Europe will enhance its support of CELAC climate actions. The Inter-American Development Bank estimates that CELAC can more than meet its future energy needs through renewable energy sources, including solar, wind and geothermal. Indeed, such resources are sufficient to cover projected 2050 electricity needs 22 times over.
The EU can play a leading role in promoting renewable energy cooperation, in part by transferring technology that is adapted to our tropical conditions, which would support CELAC countries’ efforts to reduce emissions and pollution, increase their resilience to climate change and create jobs.
This type of enhanced cooperation and diplomacy could pay large dividends. Progress in Brussels would increase CELAC countries’ confidence, thereby encouraging them to offer the strongest-possible national contributions — known technically as the “intended nationally determined contributions” — in Paris.
It could also contribute to bringing all sides closer together on thorny issues, such as the scale and scope of efforts that countries at different levels of development should make to address climate change.
By forming an ambitious alliance — which could be enlarged to include other groups, such as the Alliance of Small Island States and Group of Least-Developed Countries — the EU and CELAC heads of state can chart the necessary course to set the world on a path toward a low-carbon, sustainable and resilient future.
We urge them to take the necessary steps to achieve that goal.
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was president of Brazil from 2003 to 2011. Ricardo Lagos was president of Chile from 2000 to 2006.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing