There was a telling moment at the 23rd edition of the UN climate talks that underscored both the life-and-death stakes in the fight against global warming, and how hard it is for this belabored forum to rise to the challenge.
Twelve-year-old Timoci Naulusala from Fiji, a nation disappearing under rising seas, was delivering a testimonial to ministers and heads of state with crisp English and irresistible charm.
Suddenly, describing the devastation wrought by Cyclone Winston last year, his words became measured, his voice hushed.
“My home, my school my source of food, water, money, was totally destroyed,” he said. “My life was in chaos. I asked myself: Why is this happening? What am I going to do?”
The answer to Timoci’s first question has become frightening clear: climate change.
With only a single degree Celsius of global warming so far, the planet has already seen a crescendo of deadly droughts, heatwaves and super-storms engorged by rising seas.
“Climate change is here. It is dangerous, and it is about to get much worse,” said Johan Rockstroem, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Center, a climate change research center.
The 196-nation Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, urges the world to cap the rise in temperature at “well below” 2°C, a goal barely within reach and which still may not save Fiji and dozens of small island states.
Bangladesh and other countries with highly-populated delta regions are also at high risk.
Timoci’s second question remains open: What is he, and by extension the world, going to do?
At first, the answer — laid out in the 1992 UN Convention on Climate Change — seemed straight-forward: Humans must stop loading the atmosphere with the greenhouse gases that drive global warming.
The successful repair of the ozone hole suggested a way forward: an international treaty, but it took a quarter of a century to get one, in 2015, and even then it is woefully inadequate: Voluntary national pledges to curb carbon pollution would still allow the global thermometer to go up 3°C, a recipe for human misery on a vast scale.
Since Paris, the UN climate talks — known to participants as “COPs,” or Conferences of the Parties — have focused on working out an operational handbook for the treaty, which goes into effect in 2020.
However, as the years tick by, the byzantine bureaucracy — where hundreds of diplomats can argue for days over whether a text will say “should” or “shall” — has struggled to keep pace with both the problem, and what some negotiators call “the real world.”
“What is at stake here is the relevance of the COP process,” Nicaraguan chief negotiator Paul Oquist said, lamenting a point of blockage and the generally slow pace. “We cannot risk becoming more and more irrelevant with each meeting.”
The UN climate process risks falling out of step in two key ways, experts suggest.
One is in relation to the unforgiving conclusions of science, which show that the window of opportunity for avoiding a climatic cataclysm is rapidly narrowing to a slit.
This year’s climate talks began with negotiators learning that carbon emissions — after remaining stable for three years, raising hopes that they had peaked — will rise by 2 percent in 2017, a development one scientist called “a giant step backwards for humankind.”
Negotiations were also reeling from US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out from the Paris Agreement. The US sent envoys to the meetings, but White House officials and energy company executives hosted a pro-fossil fuel event on the conference margins.
Meanwhile, scientists warned of invisible temperature thresholds — “tipping points” — beyond which ice sheets would irretrievably shed enough water to raise global oceans by meters.
“The only question is how fast,” said James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies until 2013.
The UN’s 12-day negotiations came to an end on Saturday with an agreement to hold a stock take next year of national efforts to cut fossil fuel emissions.
The talks are falling behind the response of cities, sub-national regions and especially businesses, which have leapt headlong into the transition from a dirty to a clean global economy.
“For the first time in the history of the COPs, the heart of the action was not in the negotiating arena but in the ‘green’ zone” showcasing innovations in sustainable development, said David Levai, head of the climate program at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations in Paris.
About 7,500 cities and local governments have set carbon cutting targets, and hundreds of global companies are retooling for a low-carbon world.
A veteran EU climate diplomat, meanwhile, bemoaned the lack of dynamism in the negotiating arena. “I’ve never seen a COP with so little adrenaline,” he said.
Mads Randboll Wolff, a Danish expert in bioeconomics — a field that did not even exist a decade ago — recalled the bitter disappointment of the failed Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.
“The entire world was looking up to the podium, waiting for world leaders to strike the deal that would save us,” he said.
“One of the lessons from Copenhagen is that the negotiations are not enough,” he added. “We need them. But we also need civil society — people, citizens — to take action.”
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”