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
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS