The US states, cities and businesses that have signed up to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite US President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw from the Paris agreement would, if put together, have the clout of the world’s third-biggest economy, after the US and China.
To date, 20 US states and more than 50 of its largest cities, along with more than 60 of the biggest businesses in the US, have committed to emissions reduction goals.
Added together, they have an economic power of about US$10 trillion, placing this group behind only the US as a whole (US$18.6 trillion) and China (US$11 trillion) in terms of GDP.
Illustration: Mountain People
On Saturday at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany, these groups joined together to make “America’s pledge,” a commitment to combat global warming, in stark opposition to the Trump administration.
“This is very powerful,” said Paul Bodnar, a former lead negotiator at the climate talks for the US under former US president Barack Obama. “These states and cities would be larger than 195 out of the 197 countries signed up to the Paris agreement.”
Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg led the group in vowing to take measures, such as reducing coal-fired power and investing in renewable energy and efficiency, which would substantially reduce their carbon output.
However, some delegates want the companies and local governments involved to go further, by submitting reports on their progress toward their emissions-cutting goals to be subject to the kind of monitoring and accountability that is required from national governments under the UN process.
They have put forward a draft text, which, if accepted, would mean such voluntary commitments were made in line with UN standards and could therefore be included in the national greenhouse gas inventories required from countries.
“We welcome their contributions, but they should be accountable [on their progress in meeting their voluntary goals]. Will they be willing to be reviewed on their results, not just on the blather?” Papua New Guinean lawyer and environmentalist Kevin Conrad told the Guardian.
He said the draft text was aimed at giving these contributions “a legitimacy” under the UN’s rules.
“They should be transparent,” he said. “We do not want to prejudge America’s Pledge, we just want rigor on the results.”
The group’s commitments fall outside the pledges under the landmark 2015 Paris agreement and are likely to fall short of the requirements on carbon-cutting under the pact.
Trump has vowed to withdraw the US from this agreement, the first to bind developed and developing countries to a specific temperature goal.
At the Bonn talks, scheduled to continue to the end of this week, nations are discussing how to improve their pledges on cutting carbon in line with scientific advice.
Under the Paris agreement, they must hold global temperature rises to no more than 2°C, which scientists say is the limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible.
Current pledges under the Paris agreement are inadequate to reach this goal and it is estimated they would bring the world to 3°C of warming, which would cause drastic changes in sea level rises, bring droughts and floods to many areas of the world, and make agriculture impossible in huge swaths of the globe.
However, consensus on how to strengthen the pledges is proving elusive, and is unlikely to be finalized at the talks.
Meanwhile, the Trump White House has indicated its priorities, to the consternation of many delegates, by scheduling a meeting at the talks focusing on the future of coal and how its use can be continued with new technologies.
The America’s Pledge report was released in the alternative US headquarters at the talks, the US Climate Action Center.
The giant inflatable dome sits on the edge of the conference — which many of its supporters claim is a sign of its endorsement as a semi-official player.
Despite the geographical proximity of the America’s Pledge delegation, there are limits to what non-state actors can do. They are excluded from many of the technical talks and cannot tap into federal funds that states use to finance commitments to slow climate change or reduce its impacts. More importantly, it is harder for them to set a course for the country.
However, while that is missing, Bloomberg Philanthropies environment team head Antha Williams said it was necessary to fill the void.
“It would be better if we saw leadership from the White House, but the overarching point is that cities, states and companies that represent more than half of the US are showing their support for climate action,” she said.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change communications chief Nick Nuttall said the organizers were willing to work constructively with non-state actors.
“We are extremely supportive of the whole mass of cities, states and territories who have been aligning themselves with the Paris agreement,” he said. “American cities and states have been very active, which is welcome — and it mirrors what is happening elsewhere in the world.”
His comments were echoed by several delegates.
“We don’t turn a blind eye to anyone,” Brazilian chief negotiator Antonio Marcondes said. “We talk to the federal government and we have been approached by non-state bodies. Our policy is that we are willing to work with anyone who can move this process forward.”
However, some climate activists warned against expecting too much from the America’s Pledge team.
Thanu Yakupitiyage, of the non-governmental organization 350.org, said the climate pledges by many mayors and governors were a welcome step, but she urged still greater ambition and concrete policies to phase out fossil fuels.
“America’s Pledge is a start and we’ll be holding our elected officials, including [California] Governor Jerry Brown, to his word. As we look toward the climate summit that the governor has announced for 2018, we want more than words; we want a tangible action plan and steps taken,” she said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers