It has been 30 years since world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro and agreed on a set of measures to start the global mobilization against human-caused climate change and to meet the imperative of a more sustainable development model. Their Rio Declaration affirmed that “human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”
Today, tens of millions of people who were not even born in 1992 are experiencing the worst of the climate crisis. In a world already plagued by economic inequality and social injustice, COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated the policy failures of the past three decades. Political leaders have not lived up to their previous commitments.
Policymakers everywhere would do well to listen to those on the front lines of the climate crisis who are demonstrating real leadership and innovation. Among them are Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, mayor of Freetown in Sierra Leone, and young climate advocates such as Elizabeth Wanjiru Wathuti of Kenya and Mitzi Jonelle Tan of the Philippines, with whom I discussed future challenges at Project Syndicate’s Generation Green event last month.
These intergenerational debates are critical for driving progress and upholding one of the Rio Declaration’s central principles: “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.”
One of Rio’s strongest legacies is the creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has been the key multilateral body in the international community’s effort to strengthen the political consensus on climate action through annual Conference of the Parties (COP) summits.
In November in Glasgow, COP26 made some progress toward enhancing the 2015 Paris Agreement’s nationally determined contributions to emissions reduction, closing the gap in financing for climate adaptation and ending the use of coal, but these advances were nowhere close to sufficient, given the existential threat posed by rising emissions and temperatures.
That is why this year must be the year of accountability, with all major emitters delivering on the promises of the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact. That declaration maintained a lifeline for limiting global warming to 1.5°C, relative to pre-industrial levels, as agreed in the Paris accord.
All countries at COP26 promised to step up their ambitions and revisit their emissions-reduction targets as soon as this year.
In concrete terms, those who still have not set Paris-aligned 2030 targets should do so by COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in November. While all countries must fast-track implementation of their new commitments, it is particularly important that wealthy G20 economies do so, because they are responsible for most global emissions.
Climate finance remains another critical part of the puzzle. It has been more than a decade since rich countries pledged, at COP15 in Copenhagen, to provide US$100 billion annually to support developing countries in their mitigation and adaptation efforts. That target has never been met. In the interests of global trust and goodwill, rich countries must follow through on this commitment this year.
COP27 is to be hosted by an African country, on the shores of the Red Sea. Africa is the continent most vulnerable to climate change, despite African countries’ negligible contribution to the problem.
In the interest of justice and solidarity, I hope to see Africa speak with one voice to ensure that COP27 advances the region’s concerns on adaptation, finance, and loss and damage (L&D) — the acknowledgement that countries are experiencing climate effects beyond their ability to adapt.
COP26 left unfinished business on L&D, because the US, backed by the EU, postponed the creation of a new financial mechanism to rebuild communities in the aftermath of climate-related disasters.
Nonetheless, country representatives have committed to holding further discussions on the issue, which means that COP27 represents a major opportunity to achieve a breakthrough.
An effective L&D fund is important for climate-vulnerable states. At COP26, the Scottish government and the Belgian region of Wallonia took the first step by pledging US$2.7 million and US$1 million respectively for L&D (with matching funds from philanthropic organizations), but this money currently has nowhere to go.
Another encouraging development is a deal concluded by South Africa, the EU, France, Germany, the UK and the US to support South Africa’s “just transition” away from coal. This needs to be built upon — and emulated elsewhere.
The spirit of multilateralism that animated the Rio summit and its outcome remains indispensable today, even though the geopolitical climate is fraught with tensions, mutual suspicion and weak institutions.
As my fellow Elder Ban Ki-moon told the Generation Green audience: “We all have a part to play in addressing the climate crisis, especially those with the power needed to bring about change.”
To honor the legacy of the Rio summit, to meet the needs of those already living with the consequences of the climate crisis and to limit the repercussions for future generations, we all must strive to go further and faster to protect our shared home — and this year must be the turning point.
Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and UN high commissioner for human rights, is chair of The Elders.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In an article published on Tuesday in The Atlantic, titled “Will Taiwan Just Give Up?”, journalist Simon Shuster emphasizes the unpredictability of the US as an ally under US President Donald Trump and cites diminishing faith in the US as a contributor to what he sees as waning determination to resist China. As the title suggests, Shuster views a deal between Taiwan and China as an increasingly inevitable alternative to a costly war — one that Taiwan, lacking reliable allies and military capabilities, would eventually be destined to lose. He focuses on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) — her
For more than a decade, Beijing has described its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a benign program of ports, railways, factories and digital connectivity. That description was never true. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has begun to stage military power behind the commercial geography it has constructed — and its recent air exercise in Egypt is the clearest warning yet. Last month, a Chinese flight of J-16 strike fighters, Y-9LG electronic warfare aircraft, KJ-500 AWACS aircraft, Y-20 transport aircraft, Z-20 utility helicopters and YY-20A in-flight refueling aircraft flew approximately 6,000km to Egypt for the “Eagles of Civilization” exercise with
Taiwan does not need a CIA deputy director to explain that Beijing treats commerce as a battlefield. It has been living that lesson for decades, watching its chip designers get poached, its retired officers get recruited for cash, and its companies get pressured to choose between the Chinese market and their own government’s security priorities. What changed this month is that Washington finally said the quiet part out loud. CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis told a Washington audience that China’s threat to the US is now “fundamentally different,” because the competition is economic, not military, and that a Chinese company cannot
When the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary cataloged “Taiwanese,” it dated the word’s entry into written English to the mid-20th century, recording five distinct meanings: a native or inhabitant of Taiwan, the primary local language and the adjectives describing the place, its people and its speech. Equivalent multilayered entries appear in Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Wiktionary. Yet behind these orderly lexicographical entries lies a broader linguistic evolution — one in which the precise boundary between a “dialect” and a “language” reflects changing global perspectives on identity and regional culture. While
RSS