July was officially the hottest month recorded, serving as a reminder that global warming is happening, with its costs continuing to grow.
“Extreme weather, climate and water-related events caused 11,778 reported disasters between 1970 and 2021, with just over 2 million deaths and US$4.3 trillion in economic losses,” according to the World Meteorological Organization.
Like a pandemic, climate change affects everyone, everywhere. Canada’s Northwest Territories’ capital, Yellowknife, was recently evacuated due to hundreds of wildfires scorching the region, while the US faces a resurgence of mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria, West Nile virus and dengue fever. In Asia, severe monsoon rains have caused floods and destroyed livelihoods in some regions. In Malawi, two storms compounded a protracted cholera outbreak, claiming the lives of more than 1,600 people. The list goes on.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, the effects are disproportionate. Nine in 10 deaths and 60 percent of economic losses from climate shocks and extreme weather are found in developing countries. The devastating impact of landslides can be seen in Nanka, a town in southeastern Nigeria. Over the years, the increase in gully erosion has wiped out homesteads, destroyed farmlands and contributed to rising food insecurity.
The disastrous consequences of climate change are reminiscent of the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed more than 6 million people, destroyed businesses, livelihoods and ravaged the world economy. The response to COVID-19 — now considered an ongoing health issue, rather than a global emergency — holds important lessons for mitigating global warming.
For starters, climate change constitutes what the WHO calls a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). Global warming meets the WHO’s definition of a PHEIC: “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”
However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is better positioned than the WHO to lead the charge, since it already provides governments with scientific information to develop climate policies.
Second, the Global South must assume a larger climate leadership role. For example. the underrepresentation of African health leaders in the construction of the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) facility, dealt a major setback to the pandemic response. Gavi, the vaccine alliance, together with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and the WHO, had created COVAX to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, but the initiative — which was conceived with a colonial mindset — fell far short of this ideal.
The IPCC has made the same mistake: Only a small percentage of the authors of its reports are from Africa. Leaders from Africa, which bears a disproportionate burden of the effects of climate change yet has contributed the least to the global emissions driving it, must be at the center of decisionmaking processes.
Third, governments must take steps to counter misinformation and disinformation. Falsehoods ran rampant during the pandemic, resulting in an infodemic — a surplus of both legitimate and misleading information. With nearly 5 billion users worldwide, social-media platforms accelerated the spread of fake COVID-19 claims. To counter this disinformation, policymakers and academics could also use these same platforms to provide the facts.
More scientists and other experts should post on social-media platforms and engage with other users, educating the public about climate change, its consequences and how to build a greener world. Worryingly, nearly half of these experts had become inactive six months after Elon Musk took over Twitter, now called X, which created more space for false information to flourish.
Fourth, all countries should contribute their fair share of global response efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthy countries were encouraged to financially help low and middle-income countries access vaccinations, tests and medicines, leading to mixed results.
Similarly, wealthy countries bear a moral responsibility to provide climate aid to poorer countries, owing to their historical emissions. Last year, the UN’s Climate Change Conference (COP27) took an important step in this direction with the creation of a loss and damage fund for developing countries facing the effects of global warming. Although commendable, vulnerable countries must also improve governance and combat corruption to mitigate climate change. For example, gold smuggled out of Nigeria amounts to US$9 billion annually. The Nigerian government could have invested that lost revenue in environmental projects, like preventing landslides in Nanka.
Lastly, hoarding is futile when tackling global crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries in the Global North exacerbated inequity by stockpiling personal protective equipment, tests, vaccines and therapeutics and by clinging to intellectual-property protections.
However, infectious diseases do not respect borders; nor does climate change. All countries are experiencing its devastating consequences, albeit in different forms.
Addressing climate change requires viewing and understanding the global community as one entity. The Igbo tribe in Nigeria has a phrase that underscores the importance of acting collectively: Igwebuike. It means “we are stronger together when we are united.” The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the necessity of fairness in global governance if civilization is to have any hope of bequeathing a healthy planet for future generations.
Ifeanyi Nsofor, a senior New Voices Fellow at the Aspen Institute, is a senior Atlantic Fellow for Health Equity at George Washington University and an Innovation Fellow at PandemicTech.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS