For most people, the idea of suddenly losing everything — their home, their possessions, and even their family members and friends — is unthinkable. However, for island communities around the world, this idea is all too real. As the effects of climate change — including more frequent and severe natural disasters and extreme weather events – intensify, the threat is becoming increasingly acute.
Seven years ago, my home, the small island country of Dominica, was struck by Hurricane Maria — a Category 5 hurricane, which caused catastrophic loss and damage from which we are still recovering. Two other island countries, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada, fell victim to a similar tragedy this past summer, when Hurricane Beryl, a Category 4 storm, tore through the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.
Hurricanes have long been a feature of life in the Caribbean. However, Maria and Beryl were no ordinary hurricanes: Maria brought record-breaking rainfall, and Beryl was the earliest hurricane in history to reach Category 5 in the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists agree that climate change powered these disasters — and has made more storms like them far more likely.
Illustration: Louise Ting
It bears repeating that the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change — especially small island developing states (SIDS), like Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada — are often those that have done the least to cause it. As a result, we have little power to mitigate it directly, such as by reducing our own (already low) emissions. However, we can still contribute to overcoming the challenge. The key is to work together to compel big polluters to change their behavior.
There are few polluters bigger than the shipping industry. Not only is shipping responsible for around 3 percent of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; it also pollutes our oceans with sewage, plastics, and oil and chemicals. Shipping thus causes serious harm to human health, especially for low-income port communities in developing countries, with pollutants from ships estimated to contribute to more than 250,000 premature deaths annually.
To be sure, a functioning shipping industry remains essential to the global economy and to life in SIDS. Ships move around 80 percent of all traded products worldwide. For Dominica, this includes virtually all vital goods, from food to tools to medical supplies. Shipping also facilitates the tourism that supports so many livelihoods on our island.
However, while shipping is essential, so is reducing the associated pollution. That is why the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — the world’s highest court for marine protection — issued an unprecedented advisory opinion in May stating that countries are legally obliged to cut emissions, including from shipping, to protect the ocean.
Putting a price on the industry’s GHG emissions would go a long way toward advancing that objective. Requiring shipping companies to pay for every tonne of emissions from their vessels would raise the cost of using fossil fuels, thereby accelerating the shift toward clean-energy sources.
According to a recent study by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, such a levy would harm the global economy less than other approaches to decarbonizing shipping, such as a clean-fuel standard. If the revenues generated are directed toward developing economies, the surcharge could reduce global inequality. Those revenues would be substantial: According to the World Bank, a levy of US$150 per tonne would generate US$60 to US$80 billion per year.
For countries like Dominica, such a policy would be a game-changer. It would reduce the pollution from ships that come to our shores, make our ports and supply chains more resilient to rising sea levels and extreme weather events, advance a just energy transition and support progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.
An ideal opportunity to accelerate progress toward this goal is about to unfold in London. Between Sept. 23 and Oct. 4, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its 175 member states are attempting to agree on a set of policies for reducing shipping emissions, including some form of emissions pricing, to be adopted in April next year.
In the negotiations, SIDS must stand together to ensure that the levy is sufficiently high, and that the revenues would be distributed equitably. Already, a growing majority of countries want to see a levy mechanism adopted at the IMO. However, others including Brazil and China continue to resist this opportunity.
Belize and Pacific island states are calling for a price of US$150 per tonne, with the revenues going mostly to SIDS and least developed countries to finance investment in zero-emissions energy, ships and maritime infrastructure, and broader climate and resilience goals. More countries, in the Caribbean and beyond, must join them. When speaking in unison, our voices would matter.
Shania Scotland is a climate smart agriculture officer at the World University Service of Canada.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
Taiwan’s unconditional support “for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India to safeguard national security and fight terrorist forces that cross borders to attack innocent civilians” marked a monumental shift in the relationship between Taipei and New Delhi. At a time when the Indian government sent several delegations of parliament members to convey to the rest of the world Pakistan’s role in sponsoring terrorism against India, Taiwan became one of the few nations that unequivocally supported India’s military operation, “Sindhoor.” Sure, this change in bilateral ties did not happen in a vacuum. Over the past decade,
RSS