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
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