The latest rounds of climate talks have started and the key question that remains to be answered is whether countries are willing to let global temperatures rise another two or more degrees by the end of the 21st century
The EU has pushed for setting carbon emissions limits. In October 2006, British economist Lord Nicholas Stern published a 579-page report that explained the impact that varying degrees of global warming would have, as well as the importance and urgency of a global cooperative efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its assessment report for last year, which details the impact rising temperatures would have on water resources, ecosystems, food, coastlines and human health. There can no longer be any doubt that the damage caused by rising global temperatures will far outweigh the possible economic benefits of abusing our environment.
Global temperatures have already risen by 0.7 degrees since the Industrial Revolution. If greenhouse gas concentrations maintain their current levels, the temperature will rise another 1.34 degrees by the turn of the century. It is clear that with the growing global population and humanity’s frenzied pursuit of economic growth, greenhouse gas concentration will rise considerably this century if we do not mend our ways.
The increase in global temperatures will most likely be beyond our imagination. Although the carbon emissions limits pushed by the EU would perhaps be difficult to reach, they would certainly save the next generation from having to deal with a serious threat to its survival. These limits are therefore worth striving for.
According to the EU’s plan, carbon-dioxide emissions must be cut to 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
To achieve this, it has proposed that developed nations bear much of the responsibility for widespread reductions by slashing emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent of 1990 levels. Britain, Germany and Australia have already committed to the plan.
Although the US has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, in June the Senate will hold discussions to pass the Climate Security Act, which would set 2012 as the peak year for emissions levels and seek to gradually cut them to 30 percent of the 2012 level by 2050. This would represent approximately 40 percent of 1990 emissions levels. Of course, the administration of US President George W. Bush has not made any commitments, but that does not mean that the US will not act.
President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has proposed that emissions should be cut to 2000 levels by 2050.
If Taiwan follows the development path of European nations, for example, economic growth will be accompanied by increased energy efficiency and a long-term reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions. This would benefit industrial restructuring, in which the overall contribution of energy and resource-intensive industries to the GDP would gradually decrease.
The EU believes that with current and upcoming technological developments, their emissions targets should not be difficult to achieve.
But developing nations across the board have not been willing to commit because although they have not yet reached the economic scale of developed nations, they are expected to bear a share of developed nations’ responsibilities for global warming.
Carbon markets are being developed around the world. To show their sincerity, rich nations have been setting up climate funds and assisting developing nations in acquiring the latest technologies and establishing climate adaptation action plans.
Japan has proposed an approach to reductions in which each country’s overall commitment would be the sum of reduction goals set for each sector of its economy.
This approach would not be subject to international negotiations and is essentially another version of voluntary reductions. It is based on the hope that developing nations will willingly commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
However, some developing countries are wary of the proposal, unsure if it is a sign that developed nations are abandoning their emissions goals.
Because the year-end climate talks must produce results, it is certain that the conclusions will be extremely complex. This is the only way for countries at different stages of development to share the responsibility.
Liu Chung-ming is director of the Global Change Research Center at National Taiwan University.
Translated by James Chen
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS