Europe has to step up its effort to combat climate change and wake up to the urgency of the situation, climate change expert Lord Stern said before crunch UN talks in Paris later this month.
Europeans need to end subsidies for fossil fuels, multiply energy efficiency efforts, improve mass public transport systems and accelerate the roll-out of electric cars to live up to their commitments, Stern said in an interview.
Decisions taken at the Paris summit, which is to open on Nov. 30, will shape the world’s carbon course for the next two decades, which in turn will determine whether there is a chance of avoiding a global temperature rise of more than 2oC, considered to be the threshold for dangerous warming.
“In human history, it’s a one-off and what we map out in the next two decades will be absolutely critical,” he said. “Whether we can live in our cities — breathe in them, move in them — all of this will be defined by the decisions we take.”
“I don’t think the criticalness of these 20 years is sufficiently understood,” he said.
Stern’s word were echoed by a high-ranking UN science adviser, Jim Skea, who agreed that the EU needed to go beyond existing pledges of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030.
Skea, from Imperial College London, said Europe needs to raise that pledge to at least 45 percent, and ideally to 50 percent.
“If we were in the upper end of the 40s it would be perhaps the lowest-cost way of getting to the ambitious improvement in the long term,” he said.
His claim will be controversial among governments and some powerful industries, who are concerned that they are already at a disadvantage because restrictions on pollution are so much tougher in Europe than in other parts of the world. The UK steel industry is among the claimed casualties.
EMISSIONS PLANS
More than 140 countries have already submitted plans for cutting their emissions before the talks in Paris. On Friday last week, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said the offers fell significantly short of what was needed for a 66 percent chance of stopping the average temperature rising by 2oC or more.
The EU’s pledge is among the most ambitious, though analysis of the policies of the 28 member states suggests they are not yet on track to fulfil it.
“They [the EU] were leaders, and they vacillated,” said Stern, who is now chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, and a crossbench peer. “They have to do better than that [40 percent], but I think they are rekindling.”
For the EU to increase targets and meet greater emissions cuts, governments will need to resist political pressure to prop up their coal industries, and the European Commission must reduce allowances in the emissions trading system even more quickly than planned, said Skea, who was appointed co-chair of the working group on mitigation, which compiles five-yearly reports for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Both measures are expected to meet opposition, including in Germany and Poland.
The UNEP projection said country pledges so far would be likely to generate emissions equivalent to 54 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2030, higher than current emissions, but 11 gigatonnes less than if no action were taken.
To meet the ambition of a “likely” chance of avoiding more than 2oC warming, the figure needs to be reduced to 42 gigatonnes by 2030, and a carbon-free world economy in the second half of this century, it said.
PLEDGES
The calculation does not take account of thousands of pledges being made by companies, industry groups, cities and regions or provinces, many of which are more ambitious than the nations they operate in.
In recognition of how important those further cuts could be, organizers in France are hosting the once-fringe players in prestigious central locations. Organizers are even hopeful that the planned “Paris outcome” statement by French Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius will include these promises.
“The cities and businesses are credible,” said Stern, author of a seminal report arguing that catastrophic climate change would cost the world’s economies more than trying to stop it. “If you get this right, it could be so attractive; if you get it wrong, it will be so difficult.”
Stern warned Europe could not be complacent about the impacts of climate change.
“Europe is warming faster than many other parts of the world,” the economist said.
“Some extreme weather events have increased, with southern and central Europe seeing more frequent heat waves, forest fires and droughts. Many parts of southern Europe could face desertification if global average temperature rises by significantly more than 2oC,” he said.
Heavier precipitation and flooding is projected in northern and northeastern Europe, with a heightened risk of coastal flooding and erosion.
“The European land temperature over the past decade has been on average 1.3oC higher than in the preindustrial era, compared with a global average rise of about 0.8oC. Impacts vary across the European Union, but all member states are exposed to climate change. The Mediterranean basin, mountain areas, densely populated floodplains, coastal zones, outermost regions and the Arctic are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts,” Sten said.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath