Over the next few weeks, Paris will once again dominate the global headlines. This time, though, the news is likely to be positive, as world leaders come together to forge a meaningful agreement in the fight against climate change.
At first glance, the UN Climate Change Conference, which began on Monday and runs through Friday next week, looks a lot like the 2009 conference in Copenhagen, where negotiators were unable to agree on an effective accord.
Indeed, the desired outcome remains unchanged — an international deal that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but there are notable differences this time around.
The stiff economic headwinds that negotiators confronted six years ago have been replaced by a tailwind of opportunity. No longer is the conversation limited to burden sharing and sacrifice — increasingly, there is talk of innovation and technological breakthroughs that make sustainable development possible. In short, the negotiations are taking place in an environment favorable to collective action, with support from the business community, financial institutions, civil society, religious leaders, politicians and, indeed, the public at large.
BOTTOM-UP
Furthermore, the agreement hoped for in Paris is being built from the bottom up. It is clear that whatever shape an agreement takes, it will not be totally top-down. So nations have been asked to propose what they think they can achieve in terms of reducing emissions after 2020, through so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, and while this solution might not be adequate to the challenge of heading off the expected consequences of climate change, it is a strong step forward.
Meanwhile, in the years since the Copenhagen summit, there has been a surge of concrete progress on the part of the “non-state actors,” whose cooperation will be needed to implement an international agreement. An unprecedented number of scientists, business leaders and sub-national government politicians, such as mayors and governors, have made clear the need for a strong agreement in Paris. Broad support for a robust accord is reflected in the more than 10,000 commitments to combat climate change made by cities, regions, companies and investors.
This emerging consensus was also reflected in May at the Business and Climate Summit and Climate Finance Day, where investors and business leaders pledged to lead the global transition to a low-carbon economy. Participants at the two events called for setting a price on carbon, phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies, more partnerships with governments, and the coupling of public and private finance to diffuse the risks of low-carbon investments.
In July, more than 2,000 researchers meeting in Paris at a conference called Our Common Future Under Climate Change concluded that ambitious efforts at mitigating carbon dioxide emissions would be economically feasible and have numerous knock-on benefits. This finding is fully in line with last year’s New Climate Economy report, which established that it is possible to combat climate change while promoting economic growth.
FUNDING
Gradually, funding is being channeled toward regions in need of assistance in the fight against climate change. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that the flows of public and private climate finance reached US$62 billion this year and, in October, the World Bank pledged to increase its direct and leveraged climate financing to up to US$29 billion a year.
Innovative financing is also becoming more important, especially in developing nations. In February, Yes Bank, India’s fifth-largest private-sector bank, issued its first-ever Green Infrastructure Bond. In August, International Finance Corp issued a five-year Green Masala Bond on the London Stock Exchange. Institutional investors have been snapping up a series of climate bonds focusing on water, affordable housing, smart cities, and an array of other mitigation and adaptive projects.
Local-level politicians in cities and regions around the world are often well ahead of their national leaders. At the World Summit Climate and Territories in Lyon, France, in July, 14 networks of sub-national and local governments, representing 11 percent of the world’s population, committed to emission reductions equivalent to 15 percent of the effort deemed necessary to keep global warming below 2°C.
What all these efforts have in common is a desire to compel negotiators in Paris to recognize an urgency to the climate challenge. Their participants want world leaders to believe that progress is not only achievable; it is already occurring. A global climate agreement remains vitally important, but forging one would no longer be a leap of faith. It would be a leap into open arms.
Rana Kapoor is founder, managing director and chief executive of Yes Bank; Johan Rockstroem is professor in global sustainability and director of the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University; Khalifa Ababacar Sall is mayor of Dakar, Senegal; and Feike Sijbesma is chief executive and chairman of the managing board of Royal DSM.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS