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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US