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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS