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
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
Retired army major general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰), a former head the Taoyuan chapter of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) veterans branch, on Wednesday last week said that chapter head Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) — who dismissed Yu from his position — “would rather see cross-strait unification than yield to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government.” The statement ignited public debate, as it was the first time that a retired officer loyal to the nation — and the KMT — said out loud what has long been rumored among the public: Some KMT members would rather work with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)