On Thursday, the leaders of the world’s largest economies will meet in L’Aquila, Italy, at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) to discuss progress towards a new global climate agreement. In six months, a deal is supposed to be struck in Copenhagen, so the MEF meeting comes at a vital moment. When many of the same leaders met in April to address the economic crisis, they rightly pledged to do “whatever is necessary.” The same spirit needs to animate the L’Aquila meeting.
There is enormous good will to do so. The new US administration is supporting strong action. China is setting ambitious targets for reducing energy intensity and making massive investments in renewable energy. India has put forward its own action plan. Europe has set a goal of cutting emissions by 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 if there is an ambitious global agreement. Japan has published its proposals for major carbon reductions. Across the world, commitments are forthcoming.
But practical challenges remain. What is being asked is that global emissions be less than half their 1990 levels by 2050, having peaked before 2020. Since emissions from the developing countries are on the whole lower than those of the developed world it has been proposed that developed countries cut emissions by at least 80 percent relative to 1990 by 2050, with major steps towards this goal over the next decade.
Developing countries will also need to play their part, significantly slowing and peaking emissions growth in the coming decades. For the US, such commitments would mean cutting emissions to around one-tenth of today’s per capita level, while for China it would mean creating a new low-carbon model of economic development. For all countries, this is a major challenge.
The good news is that if we focus on clear, practical, and achievable goals, major reductions can be made in order to ensure that, whatever the precise interim target, the world will fashion a radical new approach within a manageable timeframe. A new report from the “Breaking the Climate Deadlock” project, a strategic partnership between my office and The Climate Group, shows how major reductions even by 2020 are achievable if we focus action on certain key technologies, deploy policies that have been proven to work and invest now in developing those future technologies that will take time to mature.
Fully 70 percent of the reductions needed by 2020 can be achieved by investing in three areas: increasing energy efficiency, reducing deforestation and use of lower-carbon energy sources, including nuclear and renewables. Implementing just seven proven policies — renewable energy standards; industry efficiency measures; building codes; vehicle efficiency standards; fuel carbon content standards; appliance standards, and policies for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation — can deliver these reductions.
All seven policies have already been successfully implemented in countries worldwide, but they need scaling up. While cap-and-trade systems or other means of pricing carbon emissions can help provide incentives for businesses to invest in low-carbon solutions, in the short term at least, these seven policy measures are needed to achieve the targets.
In the longer term, we also need technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), expanded nuclear power and new generations of solar energy, together with the development of technologies whose potential or even existence is still unknown. The important thing for Copenhagen is that decisions are taken now for investments that will yield benefits later.
For example, the overwhelming majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired. That is just a fact. So developing CCS or an alternative that allows coal to become clean energy is essential for meeting the 2050 goal. But we need to invest now, seriously and through global collaboration, so that by 2020 we are in a position to scale up CCS or be ready to deploy other alternatives.
Renaissance of nuclear power will require a big expansion of qualified scientists and engineers. Electric vehicles will need large adjustments to infrastructure. Smart grid systems can enable big savings in emissions, but require a plan for putting them into effect. These measures will take time, but require investment now. Meanwhile, in the short term, low energy lighting and efficient industrial motors may sound obvious, but we are nowhere near using them as extensively as we could.
So we know what we need to do, and we have tools available to achieve our goals. MEF leaders can therefore have confidence in adopting the interim and long-term targets recommended by the scientific community: keeping warming to less than 2˚C; peaking emissions within the next decade; and at least halving global emissions by 2050 versus 1990.
Developed countries will be able to commit to reducing their emissions by 80 percent versus 1990 by mid-century, as many have already done, and provide the necessary financial and technology support for developing countries’ adaptation and mitigation efforts. With that support, developing countries in turn will need to design and implement “Low-Carbon Growth Plans” that significantly slow and eventually peak their emissions growth. By making these commitments, the MEF leaders, whose countries account for more than three-quarters of global emissions, would lay a firm foundation for success in Copenhagen.
Between L’Aquila and Copenhagen, there will undoubtedly be difficult discussions over interim targets for developed countries. While such targets are important, what matters most is agreement on the measures that ultimately will set the world on a new path to a low carbon future.
For years, the emphasis has rightly been on persuading people that there must be sufficient “will” to tackle climate change. But leaders, struggling to cope with this challenge even amidst economic crisis, need to know that there is also “a way.” Only by combining the two will we succeed. Fortunately, such a way exists.
Tony Blair is a former prime minister of the United Kingdom.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS