Out in the real world Russia is burning, Pakistan and China are grappling with floods and mudslides and millions of people are starving after long droughts in Niger and the Sahel. The Arctic sea ice is reportedly melting at near record pace, land and sea temperature data show conclusively that the world is warming and 16 countries have experienced record temperatures already this year.
What more do countries need to persuade them to act on climate change?
A lot, it seems. In the parallel world of UN climate talks, where time is measured in endless debates about commas and full stops, negotiations have been going on for three years, but with time rapidly running out before a crunch political meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in November, the only progress being made is backwards.
This is what should happen: the chair of the talks invites countries to make proposals, diplomats narrow these down and then the politicians turn up, haggle and make choices. However, two weeks ago in Bonn, the text prepared by the chair based on what came out of the ill-fated meeting in Copenhagen back in December, just got bigger and bigger.
In a series of moves that would have been farcical if they were not so serious, China, the US, Bolivia and others, stuffed in more and more paragraphs to the text. Who started the tit-for-tat diplomacy does not matter; the fact is at least 40 pages of proposals will now have to be laboriously negotiated line by line at the next short preparatory meeting in China in October.
With so little time left for full negotiations before the politicians arrive, the talks now look to be in semi-crisis. The chances of a deal in Cancun were always slight, but now it’s quite possible that the world won’t get a legal agreement even next year in South Africa. You would almost think that some countries did not want an agreement and you might be right.
There is another line of thought which says these steps backwards were actually signs of progress. According to this thinking, what we are seeing is the welcome, and long overdue correction to last year’s kamikaze global diplomacy which fatally destabilized the global talks and ended in the Copenhagen fiasco. This analysis points out that the negotiations are back on track, that a majority of countries in the word are involved as opposed to just a few, and, with a fair wind and a raised level of ambition by everyone, it could lead to a much more balanced agreement with broader support.
To understand this, you need to go back. If you remember, the US, aided and abetted by Britain and other rich countries, last year plotted to ditch the Kyoto treaty, which legally committed industrialized countries to emission cuts. In its place they sought to impose a new global agreement which would allow them to set their own targets and timetables, develop carbon markets, rework forestry rules and spur green technology.
Heads of state were to go to Copenhagen and, the moment the talks faltered, would be presented with a new text prepared by the Danish government.
The big emitting countries would then strong-arm the smaller ones, horse-trading would pay off the antis and the world would have an agreement.
It was a diplomatic disaster, a casebook study of how not to negotiate a global deal. Despite warnings, rich countries utterly failed to understand that the Kyoto protocol is like a bible to the poor — an act of faith, the only legal agreement they have which forces the rich to actually do anything.
A draft of the text was leaked, the ambush spotted, and the best that the US could do was to get 130 countries to “associate themselves” with a weak, non-binding political accord which could be taken forward to talks this year.
That accord is now backfiring. The US desperately still wants it to be the base of the text which countries negotiate, but the confrontational “take it or leave it” approach the US adopted in negotiations is not valid any more. In short, a number of developing countries have regrouped and are rethinking their positions.
From their perspective, what was thrust on them in Copenhagen was insulting. They were told to reduce their own emissions and change their whole development path, even as the industrialized countries were allowed to devise ever more sophisticated ways to do nothing.
The chief villain is now the US, the second biggest carbon polluter in the world (China became No. 1 in 2007) and by far the largest historical emitter. The Obama honeymoon effect has worn off and what is being revealed, say the developing countries, is a US led by a President Bush mark 2 — a country still not prepared to negotiate its lifestyle whatever the promises and protestations made by a liberal president, whose party could yet be routed during the midterm elections in November.
Their fears have only been confirmed. The US was at its most bloody-minded in Bonn — not prepared to compromise, still only prepared to cut its emissions by a paltry 4 percent from 1990 figures and now unable to pass domestic legislation committing itself to any cuts at all. On top of that, it and other rich countries have still not put money on the table for climate aid.
The poor are used to be being bullied by the rich, but the scandal here, they say, is that the US and Europe do not want to do anything. New research from the respected Stockholm environment institute and academic institutions in the US and Europe shows that rich countries will barely have to adjust their economies at all. Indeed, in some scenarios the could even end up increasing their emissions.
The poorest countries are distraught. Two weeks ago the African group, the small island states and many others all got up to berate the rich for dragging their feet and tell the world of the exceptional droughts, floods and disasters they were experiencing.
Instead of accepting the broad thrust of the accord, more than 100 of them have now demanded that any agreement limits future temperature rises not to below 2ºC — as the accord says — but to 1.5ºC or lower.
Equally, many now say that the US$100 billion a year promise of climate aid (“little more than what bankers pay in bonuses”) is just not enough. They have beefed up the text with what the US and Europe continue to say are outrageous demands.
The trouble is that if the rich are not prepared to negotiate, nothing will happen. The greater the divide between countries, the more likely the whole process will break down in Mexico. Then we could have a repeat of Copenhagen, with Mexico instead of Denmark trying to broker an unacceptable last minute deal.
That is the nightmare scenario. More likely is that the level of ambition for Cancun will be reduced further with no more than a package of agreements negotiated and all the tough stuff put back until next year. Or 2013. Or 2014.
As one delegate for a developing country put it: It’s Groundhog Day all over again.”
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
RSS