The ongoing war in Ukraine and the fighting in Gaza following Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks must not distract the world from our collective priorities: reducing our carbon dioxide emissions, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050, preserving biodiversity, and fighting poverty and inequality.
This is the doctrine France is implementing at an international level, through the Paris Pact for People and the Planet and the One Planet summits. The cornerstone of our strategy must be to speed up the ecological transition, as well as the fight against poverty. After all, it is now crystal clear that no country would work to protect the planet if the price it must pay leads its citizens into a socioeconomic dead end.
The world’s most advanced economies, which have also been the main carbon dioxide emitters since the industrial revolution, must move away from fossil fuels. If we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, this is nonnegotiable.
Science has set the trajectory: We must move away from coal by 2030, from oil by 2045 and from gas by 2050. While the G7 countries bear the greatest responsibility, China, which is now the second-largest emitter in history, must also be fully committed.
The threat posed by coal must be addressed first. Today, the 2,000GW of installed capacity emits enough carbon dioxide to take us above the 1.5°C increase threshold. While the International Energy Agency recommends withdrawing 92GW per year, 500GW of additional capacity is already planned.
While it is the G7’s responsibility to move away from coal by 2030 — France is to have done so in 2027 — emerging economies are now the biggest coal consumers. In these countries, we need to speed up the financing of renewables, as well as nuclear power, which, as a manageable and a decarbonized energy source, must play a key role.
We must also put private financing and trade at the service of the Paris Agreement. The cost of investment must be higher for players in the fossil-fuel sector. We need a green interest rate and a brown interest rate. Similarly, we need a climate clause in our trade agreements, because we cannot simultaneously demand that our industries become greener while supporting the liberalization of international trade in polluting products.
For the most vulnerable countries, we must create conditions that enable them to finance their climate-change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and access the green technologies that are the new engines of growth. This implies going further than traditional “official development assistance” and doing for vulnerable countries what rich countries did for themselves during the COVID-19 pandemic: pursue an unorthodox fiscal and monetary policy.
The results are already there: In two years, following the initiative we took in Paris in the spring of 2021, we have released over US$100 billion in special drawing rights (SDR) — the IMF’s reserve asset — for vulnerable countries. By activating this “dormant asset,” we are extending 20-year loans at near-zero interest rates to finance climate action and pandemic preparedness in the poorest countries. We have begun to change debt rules to suspend payments for such countries, should a climate shock occur. We have also changed the mandate of multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, so that they take more risks and mobilize more private money.
We are going to continue working on this, including within the framework of the new loss and damage fund, where we must mobilize new private insurance mechanisms in the face of climate risk. We are to start from the specific needs of the hardest-hit countries. In the first half of this year, France and Bangladesh are to sign an agreement to finance climate-change adaptation and compensation for loss and damage, with the French development agency contributing 1 billion euros (US$1.105 billion) in investment, and the IMF extending up to US$1 billion worth of SDRs in new loans.
This also implies identifying — on a global scale — governance mechanisms for the most crucial challenges we will have to face in the coming years, access to water being one of the most pressing. In this regard, France and Kazakhstan are to convene a One Water Summit during the UN General Assembly in September.
Moreover, we must focus on building the basis of a “bio-economy” that would pay for services provided by nature. Nature is our best technology for sequestering carbon on a large scale. The countries with the most important carbon and biodiversity reserves — especially in the three main tropical forest basins — must obtain far greater resources, determined on a country-by-country basis, in exchange for their stewardship of these vital reserves. France has already launched three contracts of this type at the COP28 with Papua New Guinea, the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Reform of the voluntary carbon market is essential. We need to create an international carbon and biodiversity exchange that would allow government and private actors to organize voluntary carbon credit swaps, based on sufficiently ambitious criteria to avoid greenwashing, and to remunerate local communities.
The ocean is our most important carbon sink and we must protect it. France and Costa Rica are to convene the third UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, in June, with the aim of updating international law, including on the prohibition of plastic pollution and on protection of the deep sea and seabed. These reforms would also enable the development of national strategies for seaboard protection by countries with exclusive economic zones.
Lastly, we might not succeed if we cannot reform the World Bank and the IMF, which play a prominent role in establishing norms and financing green transition on a global scale. Eighty years after their creation, these institutions remain underfunded, relative to the size of the global economy and population, and emerging and developing countries continue to be shut out of their governance. We might not be able to agree on goals and financing until every country negotiating is on an equal footing. To this end, we must review Bretton Woods governance and ask emerging countries to assume their share of accountability in financing global public goods.
Emmanuel Macron is the president of France.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS