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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS