Nowadays, people are too often forced to choose between doing what is morally right and doing what is economically beneficial. Indeed, their options sometimes appear to be mutually exclusive, making the decision of which path to take exceedingly challenging. However, sometimes moral rectitude and economic interest merge, presenting an opportunity that must not be missed. That is the case — from the perspectives of this archbishop and former finance minister — with the world’s response to climate change.
The moral imperative is indisputable, as the effects of climate change — including extreme weather, temperature changes and rising sea levels — are felt most keenly by the global poor, who have also benefited the least from the economic activities that cause it. Moreover, climate change could accelerate poverty and inequality in the future, meaning that, unless we address it in a timely manner, it will diminish — or even eliminate — future generations’ chances to achieve their development goals. Making every effort to minimize climate change today is, quite simply, the right thing to do.
Fortunately, the economic benefits of addressing climate change are also clear. After all, climate change carries significant economic costs — for example, those associated with more frequent and extreme weather events. Moreover, building a “green” economy, based on continued technological innovation, is the smartest and most efficient way to create new engines of sustainable growth and job creation for the next generation.
Action at the individual, company, municipal and national levels is crucial. However, the fact is that climate change is a global problem — and thus requires a global solution. The most important tool the world has for doing the right thing — and reaping vast economic benefits — is a universal climate-change agreement. That is why world leaders must take the opportunity presented by the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris this December to develop a single global framework for action.
In fact, world leaders already pledged to do so. The UN Climate Change Conference in 2011 — initiated and hosted by South Africa — produced an agreement to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, no later than this year.
Important progress has been made since the Durban conference. Last month, more than 30 countries — including the EU’s members, Gabon, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and the US — submitted their post-2020 plans to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. In the coming weeks and months, this momentum will continue to build, as other countries — including, it is expected, major emerging economies like Brazil, China and India — submit their commitments as well.
However, if the Paris meeting is to be successful — in terms of both fulfilling the moral imperative and capturing the economic benefits of confronting climate change — every participating country must submit its national contributions for the period beginning in 2020 as soon as possible. Furthermore, the final agreement must include an effective and ambitious plan for de-carbonization over the next 50 years.
The fact is that short and medium-term commitments alone are simply inadequate to fulfill the pledge, made by the world’s governments in 2009 and reiterated in 2010, to cap the rise in global temperatures at 2?C relative to the pre-industrial era. It is crucial to create — and adhere to — a progressive long-term emissions-reduction strategy that sends a clear signal to capital markets that governments are serious about confronting climate change.
Such a strategy could include, for example, incentives for investment in low-carbon solutions. With about US$90 trillion dollars set to be invested in infrastructure globally over the next 15 years, the impact of such an approach could be considerable — if not decisive.
The moral and economic imperatives to act on climate change could not be stronger.
Although the road ahead will be difficult, with new and unexpected challenges arising along the way, we can find inspiration in former South African president Nelson Mandela’s famous dictum: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”
We face an unprecedented opportunity to achieve a more sustainable, prosperous and socially just future. Creating that future must start now.
Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is archbishop emeritus and former archbishop of Cape Town. Trevor Manuel was South Africa’s finance minister from 1996 to 2009.
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