The drumbeat of climate change echoes louder with each passing year, and the latest reports from the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations paint a nuanced picture of our global efforts. On one hand, there's a renewed sense of urgency and some positive developments; on the other, a stark reality check that we are still far from where we need to be.
I read with interest the UN's update on "ClimateChange | United Nations" and its optimistic tone regarding new climate plans. It highlights the upcoming COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where world leaders, scientists, NGOs, and civil society will gather to discuss priority actions and climate finance pledges. The emergence of a new Youth Advisory Group and the emphasis on local leaders like the 'Solar Didis' in India (which I celebrated in my blog Didi tera solar suhaana) truly inspire hope. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres (sgcentral@un.org) so powerfully stated, "The clean energy future is no longer a promise. It’s a fact." This aligns with my own long-held belief in decentralised energy production and community empowerment, a vision I discussed in my exchanges with Minister R K Singhji (as noted in Dear Shri R K Singhji, Congratulations).
However, the deeper dive into "Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures" by Lindsay Maizland and Clara Fong (cfong@cfr.org) for the Council on Foreign Relations offers a necessary dose of realism. While agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement signify international commitment, the truth is, emissions continue to rise, and the world is heating at an alarming rate. The findings of the first global stocktake at the 2023 UN Climate Summit in Dubai confirmed what many of us have feared: governments need to do significantly more to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 1.5°C. Alice C. Hill, CFR Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, puts it bluntly: “We’re headed toward disaster if we can’t get our warming in check.” I find myself nodding in agreement, recalling my past reflections on climate finance where I underscored the urgent need for action, not just pledges.
This takes me back to my previous blog, COP 29 : A bigger flop than COP 28, and Climate Finance ? Polluters must Pay. In those pieces, I highlighted the unfulfilled $100 billion per year commitment made in 2015 and the ongoing ambiguity around transparent mechanisms for climate financing. The establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 is a step in the right direction, acknowledging the inequality of climate change where poorer countries, least responsible for emissions, are most vulnerable. Yet, as I've previously argued in Climate Finance Definition - Rose by Any Other Name, the details of financing — how it's defined, mobilized, and disbursed — remain critical.
The debate over who is most responsible for climate change, between developed and developing nations, has persisted since the early 1990s. While historical emitters like the United States and the European Union bear significant responsibility, current major emitters like China and India are also under pressure. It's a complex dance of responsibility and capability, further complicated by political shifts, as seen with Donald Trump's repeated withdrawals from the Paris Agreement and Joe Biden's re-entry. David Victor (dgvictor@ucsd.edu), an international relations professor, rightly notes that the disagreement is less about science and more about priorities.
Interestingly, the article also touches upon alternatives to traditional agreements. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says a universal carbon price, a concept that aligns with my earlier discussions on the need for a structured carbon market. In my blog, Global carbon market as envisaged, I explored India's potential in this space and the importance of a uniform trading scheme to incentivize emission reductions. This echoes the sentiment for collaborative efforts and innovative solutions.
Moreover, the notion of unconventional solutions is gaining traction. I remember writing about the bold initiative from Make Sunsets in Silicon Valley, who are proposing 'cooling credits' by releasing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, an idea I explored in Rogue plan shapes up to alter climate. While such geoengineering techniques are controversial, they represent the kind of proactive, out-of-the-box thinking that I've always championed. We need to continuously engage with experts and innovators to enhance the feasibility and impact of such initiatives.
From the high-level negotiations at COP conferences to the grassroots efforts of local leaders and the daring proposals from Silicon Valley, it's clear that the path to a sustainable future is multifaceted. We need the solidarity that the UN calls for, the rigorous analysis from institutions like CFR (with insights from experts like David M. Hart (dhart@cfr.org), Jennifer Hillman, Mike Froman, Madeline Babin, Varun Sivaram, Michelle Gavin, Paul J. Angelo, and the graphical work by Will Merrow (wmerrow@cfr.org)), Tess Turner, Dan R. Brouillette, Mark Hibbs (mhibbs@ceip.org), Allison Macfarlane, A. Michael Spence, Erin D. Dumbacher (edumbacher@cfr.org), Stephen Sestanovich), and, crucially, a persistent push for transparency, accountability, and the fulfillment of commitments. My hope remains that we can bridge the gap between promises and actions, leveraging both global diplomacy and local ingenuity to secure our planet's future.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment