Latest news with #KyotoProtocol
The Star
13-07-2025
- Politics
- The Star
There is no alternative to multilateralism
THE year 2025 should be a time of celebration, marking eight decades of the United Nations' existence. But it risks going down in history as the year when the international order built since 1945 collapsed. The cracks had long been visible. Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the intervention in Libya, and the war in Ukraine, some permanent members of the Security Council have trivialised the illegal use of force. The failure to act vis-à-vis the genocide in Gaza represents a denial of the most basic values of humanity. The inability to overcome differences is fueling a new escalation of violence in the Middle East, the latest chapter of which includes the attack on Iran. The law of the strongest also threatens the multilateral trading system. Sweeping tariffs disrupt value chains and push the global economy into a spiral of high prices and stagnation. The World Trade Organisation has been hollowed out, and no one remembers the Doha Development Round. The 2008 financial collapse exposed the failure of neoliberal globalisation, but the world remained locked into the austerity playbook. The choice to bail out the ultra-wealthy and major corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses has deepened inequality. In the past ten years, the US$33.9 trillion (RM144.4 trillion) accumulated by the world's richest 1% is equivalent to 22 times the resources needed to eradicate global poverty. The stranglehold on the state's capacity for action has led to public distrust in institutions. Discontent has become fertile ground for extremist narratives that threaten democracy and promote hate as a political project. Many countries have cut cooperation programs instead of redoubling efforts to implement the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. The available resources are insufficient, the costs are high, access is bureaucratic, and the conditions imposed often fail to respect local realities. This is not about charity, but about addressing disparities rooted in centuries of exploitation, interference, and violence against the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. In a world with a combined GDP of over US$100 trillion, it is unacceptable that more than 700 million people still suffer from hunger and live without electricity or water. The richest countries bear the greatest historical responsibility for carbon emissions, yet it is the poorest who will suffer the most from climate change. The year 2024 was the hottest in history, showing that reality is moving faster than the Paris Agreement. The binding obligations of the Kyoto Protocol were replaced by voluntary commitments, and the financing pledges made at COP15 in Copenhagen – promising US$100bil annually – never materialised. The recent increase in North Atlantic security organisation Nato's military spending makes that possibility even more remote. Attacks on international institutions ignore the concrete benefits the multilateral system has brought to people's lives. If smallpox has been eradicated, the ozone layer preserved, and labour rights still protected in much of the world, it is thanks to the efforts of these institutions. In times of growing polarisation, terms like 'deglobalisation' have become commonplace. But it is impossible to 'de-planetise' our shared existence. No wall is high enough to preserve islands of peace and prosperity surrounded by violence and misery. Today's world is vastly different from that of 1945. New forces have emerged, and new challenges have arisen. If international organisations seem ineffective, it is because their structure no longer reflects the current reality. Unilateral and exclusionary actions are worsened by the absence of collective leadership. The solution to the multilateralism crisis is not to abandon it, but to rebuild it on fairer and more inclusive foundations. This is the understanding that Brazil – whose vocation has always been to foster collaboration among nations – demonstrated during its G20 presidency last year and continues to demonstrate through its presidencies of the global South grouping Brics and United Nation's environmental conference COP30 this year: that it is possible to find common ground even in adverse scenarios. There is an urgent need to recommit to diplomacy and rebuild the foundations of true multilateralism – one capable of answering the outcry of a humanity fearful for its future. Only then can we stop passively watching the rise of inequality, the senselessness of war, and the destruction of our own planet. — China Daily/ANN Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is the president of Brazil.
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
EU's proposed 2040 emissions target signals its retreat as leader on climate action
For most of the past 30 years, the EU has led the world on climate action. The bloc had the deepest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocol; the first climate laws came from EU member states; the first emissions trading scheme, in 2005; and the Paris agreement in 2015. At times when other major countries – the US, Japan, Canada, China and India at various points – have stepped back, the EU has often stepped forward. There would be no Paris accord had the bloc not won a key battle at the Durban climate summit in 2011 that paved the way. For Wopke Hoekstra, the EU's climate commissioner, that era is over. Europe would still lead, he said, but other countries must come forward too. '[We should be] looking forward to contributions from more than just the EU, given that we're responsible for 6% of global emissions, so without others we're not going to solve this,' he said in an interview before the publication of the commission's proposal for a 2040 emissions target on Wednesday. 'Much as I appreciate the high expectations [of EU leadership], it is extremely important to contextualise this. We will continue with clearly ambitious yet also pragmatic climate policies.' The commission has proposed a 90% reduction on greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, compared with 1990 levels. The figure is at the bottom of the 90-95% range that the bloc's scientific advisers said was possible, and to the consternation of many green campaigners includes a provision for up to 3% of the reductions to come from buying carbon credits overseas, from 2036. Mohamed Adow, the director of the Nairobi-based thinktank Power Shift Africa, said: 'The EU using carbon credits in its 2040 target is a huge concern and will undermine trust at a time [when] we need Europe to be stepping into the void left by the US. Carbon credits are a mirage, an accounting trick to let the rich world keep on burning fossil fuels whilst pretending climate change is being tackled somewhere else in the world.' The idea also has some support, however. Rebecca Humphries, the head of climate policy for Europe at the Nature Conservancy, said: 'Carbon markets, when done right, can lead to faster and more effective climate progress.' The proposal must still pass key hurdles: it could face opposition in the EU parliament, and some member states have signalled they may try to maul it. Those include the predictably climate-sceptic Hungary, but also – astoundingly, on the 10th anniversary of the Paris agreement – France. Emmanuel Macron has suggested the 2040 target could be delayed, by separating it from the EU's discussions on a fresh target on emissions under the Paris agreement, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), covering the next decade. The UN secretary general has asked all countries to submit NDCs in September, after most missed a February deadline, to allow them to be presented at a crunch climate summit, Cop30, this November in Brazil. The EU's NDC, pegged to 2035, is supposed to be derived from the 2040 proposal. Allowing them to be separated would give more time for debate on the later goal – debate demanded mainly by those who wish to weaken it. European centrist leaders face a populist threat, and backlash against green policy. Macron's stance, and Hoekstra's comments on EU leadership, must be seen in that context. But giving in to populist rhetoric may be counterproductive. Polls show that most people in the EU remain firmly in favour of strong climate measures. Amélie Laurent, policy adviser at the Bellona Europe thinktank, said: 'With most Europeans recognising climate change as a serious threat and supporting climate neutrality by 2050, it is crystal clear that citizens demand meaningful climate action. EU policymakers must listen to their citizens and deliver the targets needed to meet this mandate.' Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion The EU's policies will also have an effect internationally. Cosima Cassel, programme lead for climate diplomacy and geopolitics at the E3G thinktank in Berlin, said the EU's NDC would be crucial in galvanising other economic heavyweights to play their part. 'A timely NDC submission would send a clear signal to other major emitters including China, India, Japan, Australia and Mexico to step up their own ambition ahead of Cop30.' China, the world's biggest emitter, will be critical – whether Beijing goes for a 10% cut in emissions by 2035, as some have suggested, or the 30% to 50% cut that others calculate is feasible, will be the biggest determinant of success at Cop30 in Belém. The EU is holding key meetings with China in the coming weeks, and Hoekstra has criticised the Chinese for building new coal-fired power plants. But at least China is helping to drive global takeup of clean technology at a rapid rate. India is also surging ahead in renewable energy, and is now the world's third-biggest producer of solar and wind energy. By contrast, there are very large emitters and exporters of fossil fuels – Russia, Saudi Arabia and now the US – that take little action or have gone backwards on climate commitments. The key question for the EU, and the planet, will be what can be done to bring recalcitrant countries on board at Cop30. Allowing them to exploit the impression that the EU is backing down might prove a boon to the wreckers.
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
EU's proposed 2040 emissions target signals its retreat as leader on climate action
For most of the past 30 years, the EU has led the world on climate action. The bloc had the deepest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocol; the first climate laws came from EU member states; the first emissions trading scheme, in 2005; and the Paris agreement in 2015. At times when other major countries – the US, Japan, Canada, China and India at various points – have stepped back, the EU has often stepped forward. There would be no Paris accord had the bloc not won a key battle at the Durban climate summit in 2011 that paved the way. For Wopke Hoekstra, the EU's climate commissioner, that era is over. Europe would still lead, he said, but other countries must come forward too. '[We should be] looking forward to contributions from more than just the EU, given that we're responsible for 6% of global emissions, so without others we're not going to solve this,' he said in an interview before the publication of the commission's proposal for a 2040 emissions target on Wednesday. 'Much as I appreciate the high expectations [of EU leadership], it is extremely important to contextualise this. We will continue with clearly ambitious yet also pragmatic climate policies.' The commission has proposed a 90% reduction on greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, compared with 1990 levels. The figure is at the bottom of the 90-95% range that the bloc's scientific advisers said was possible, and to the consternation of many green campaigners includes a provision for up to 3% of the reductions to come from buying carbon credits overseas, from 2036. Mohamed Adow, director of the Nairobi-based thinktank Power Shift Africa, said: 'The EU using carbon credits in its 2040 target is a huge concern and will undermine trust at a time [when] we need Europe to be stepping into the void left by the US. Carbon credits are a mirage, an accounting trick to let the rich world keep on burning fossil fuels whilst pretending climate change is being tackled somewhere else in the world.' The idea also has some support, however. Rachel Humphries, head of climate policy for Europe at the Nature Conservancy, said: 'Carbon markets, when done right, can lead to faster and more effective climate progress.' The proposal must still pass key hurdles: it could face opposition in the EU parliament, and some member states have signalled they may try to maul it. Those include the predictably climate-sceptic Hungary, but also – astoundingly, on the 10th anniversary of the Paris agreement – France. Emmanuel Macron has suggested the 2040 target could be delayed, by separating it from the EU's discussions on a fresh target on emissions under the Paris agreement, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), covering the next decade. The UN secretary general has asked all countries to submit NDCs in September, after most missed a February deadline, to allow them to be presented at a crunch climate summit, Cop30, this November in Brazil. The EU's NDC, pegged to 2035, is supposed to be derived from the 2040 proposal. Allowing them to be separated would give more time for debate on the later goal – debate demanded mainly by those who wish to weaken it. European centrist leaders face a populist threat, and backlash against green policy. Macron's stance, and Hoekstra's comments on EU leadership, must be seen in that context. But giving into populist rhetoric may be counterproductive. Polls show that most people in the EU remain firmly in favour of strong climate measures. Amélie Laurent, policy adviser at the Bellona Europe thinktank, said: 'With most Europeans recognising climate change as a serious threat and supporting climate neutrality by 2050, it is crystal clear that citizens demand meaningful climate action. EU policymakers must listen to their citizens and deliver the targets needed to meet this mandate.' Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion The EU's policies will also have an effect internationally. Cosima Cassel, programme lead for climate diplomacy and geopolitics at the E3G thinktank in Berlin, said the EU's NDC would be crucial in galvanising other economic heavyweights to play their part. 'A timely NDC submission would send a clear signal to other major emitters including China, India, Japan, Australia and Mexico to step up their own ambition ahead of Cop30.' China, the world's biggest emitter, will be critical – whether Beijing goes for a 10% cut in emissions by 2035, as some have suggested, or the 30% to 50% cut that others calculate is feasible, will be the biggest determinant of success at Cop30 in Belém. The EU is holding key meetings with China in the coming weeks, and Hoekstra has criticised the Chinese for building new coal-fired power plants. But at least China is helping to drive global takeup of clean technology at a rapid rate. India is also surging ahead in renewable energy, and is now the world's third-biggest producer of solar and wind energy. By contrast, there are very large emitters and exporters of fossil fuels – Russia, Saudi Arabia and now the US – that take little action or have gone backwards on climate commitments. The key question for the EU, and the planet, will be what can be done to bring recalcitrant countries on board at Cop30. Allowing them to exploit the impression that the EU is backing down might prove a boon to the wreckers.
The Sun
20-06-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Carbon tax approach to achieving green future
PETALING JAYA: A carbon tax does not have to hurt the average Malaysian, but it could force polluters to clean up their act. That is the message from experts as the country prepares to roll out the levy by 2026. Taylor's University research cluster lead for innovative management practices Prof Dr Poon Wai Ching said the carbon tax should not be viewed simply as a revenue-raising measure but also as a vital tool in steering Malaysia toward a more sustainable, low-carbon future. 'It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by assigning a monetary cost to emitting carbon dioxide,' she said. 'For instance, if a company emits 10,000 tonnes of CO₂ and the tax is RM10 per tonne, it would owe RM100,000, putting real financial pressure on businesses to invest in cleaner technologies and energy efficiency.' The policy is expected to initially target high-emission sectors such as iron, steel and energy. Revenue generated could be channelled into green research, innovation and sustainable infrastructure, including climate adaptation projects and circular economy initiatives. Poon added that although Malaysia has long been aligned with global climate frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, recent shifts in international trade dynamics have intensified the need for action. 'One key factor is the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which will tax imports based on their carbon content,' she said. 'If Malaysia doesn't act, we risk losing competitiveness in global trade.' She also stressed the importance of revenue recycling – using income from the carbon tax to benefit the wider public, such as by supporting low-income communities, subsidising green technologies and strengthening national sustainable development goals. While the carbon tax underscores Malaysia's commitment to achieving net-zero emissions, Poon said the recent rationalisation of RON95 fuel subsidies helps ease the public into the idea of paying closer to the true environmental cost of energy. 'It makes the shift to carbon pricing smoother over time,' she added. Poon also pointed out that 37 countries have introduced carbon tax frameworks, including Singapore and European nations such as Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. She said Malaysia could draw valuable lessons from these international models by adopting a phased approach, ensuring transparent pricing and protecting vulnerable communities. 'If businesses adopt sustainable and circular economy strategies now, they can boost their ESG (environmental, social and governance) performance and tap into regional growth opportunities,' she said. Universiti Teknologi Mara Malaysian Institute of Transport head of legal and quality Dr Siti Ayu Jalil said the transport and logistics sector, which contributed 5% to Malaysia's GDP in 2024, will face both short-term and long-term challenges under the new policy. 'In the short term, the carbon tax and fuel subsidy cuts will raise operational costs in freight, haulage and ride-hailing services. This may lead to higher prices for essential goods, especially in Sabah and Sarawak, where transport distances are greater,' she said. Over time, the carbon tax will become a fixed cost for businesses, incentivising them to adopt low-emission fleets such as electric and hybrid trucks and to shift towards rail and maritime transport, she added. Green certifications may also become essential to stay competitive, she said. To support the transition, Siti Ayu called for targeted government incentives, including grants and tax breaks for low-emission vehicles, as well as expanded EV charging infrastructure. She also recommended increased investment in freight rail and urban logistics hubs to reduce urban congestion and emissions. 'Part of the carbon tax revenue should be used to fund research and innovation in sustainable transport technology,' she added. 'This includes adopting digital solutions like GPS-based tracking and AI-driven route optimisation to reduce fuel consumption.' Siti Ayu also underscored the importance of protecting low-income groups and rural populations from the knock-on effects of rising transport costs. She proposed targeted cash transfers and rebates for B40 and M40 households, continued support for public transport passes such as My50 and My100 and the reintroduction of My30 to ensure affordable unlimited travel. In rural areas, she suggested logistics subsidies for essential goods such as food and medicine to prevent price surges. 'Reform is unavoidable. Malaysia must do its part in combatting climate change and aligning with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This is not just a tax. It's a path to a climate-resilient, productive and fair future,' said Siti Ayu.
Indian Express
29-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Methane mitigation, key to slowing global warming
— Renuka Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions is crucial to fighting climate change. After carbon dioxide, methane is the most potent GHG responsible for approximately a third of global warming. It is a colourless, odourless gas that has both natural as well as anthropogenic sources. Naturally, it is produced in a wetland due to the decomposition of vegetation under water. Other natural sources include termites, volcanoes, wildfires, etc. The primary sectors responsible for anthropogenic methane emissions are: Agriculture, which accounts for 40% of emissions and includes animal manure and rice cultivation. After this, the fossil fuel sector accounts for 35% of methane emissions. Waste management is responsible for roughly 20% of emissions, originating from the decomposition of organic matter in landfills, open dumps, and wastewater treatment systems. Methane is widely used as a fuel for electricity generation, heating, cooking, and in industrial processes. It also serves as a key feedstock for hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol production, and is used in transportation (CNG/LNG) and as renewable biogas. Despite its utility, methane emerged as a major climate concern. It has a shorter lifespan compared to CO₂ but is much more efficient in trapping radiation. As the climate crisis intensifies, tackling methane emissions has become an urgent and impactful strategy for reducing GHG emissions. Reducing methane emissions has long been a part of climate change mitigation efforts. The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) laid the foundation to combat climate change by adopting the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and placing the obligation on developed countries to reduce GHG emissions. However, being just a framework convention, the UNFCCC didn't specify the GHGs or set binding targets. To implement the convention, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and came into force in 2005. It listed six GHGs, and methane was one of them. The Kyoto Protocol imposed binding emission reduction targets on developed countries. The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, marked a shift towards a voluntary approach (nationally determined approach), while still expecting developed countries to take the lead in setting emissions targets. In recent years, abating methane emissions has been recognised as one of the most effective and affordable strategies to reduce global warming. At COP 26, the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) was launched as a voluntary international initiative with its primary goal of reducing global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. To enhance global reporting on methane emissions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also launched the International Methane Emission Observatory (IMEO). To further support methane data collection, the UNEP launched the Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) at COP27 (2022). MARS is a global satellite detection and notification system that provides data on methane emissions. Building on these efforts, COP 28 established the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter (ODGC), which aims at accelerating the decarbonisation of the oil and gas sector. The charter aims at achieving net-zero upstream methane emissions by 2030. At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, over 30 countries endorsed the Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste, marking a significant advancement in global climate initiatives. This declaration targets methane emissions from organic waste, such as food scraps, agricultural residues, and sewage, which account for nearly 20% of anthropogenic methane emissions. The Global Methane Initiative (GMI), launched in 2004 as the Methane to Markets Partnership, is an initiative to foster collaborations to reduce methane emissions. It works in collaboration with other key international environmental initiatives and agencies such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the Global Methane Hub, and the World Bank Group to reduce global methane emissions. Over the past two decades, GMI has helped raise global awareness about methane's climate and health impacts, fostered international cooperation, and mobilised investments in methane mitigation efforts. GMI has also been a key sponsor of various events on methane mitigation. One such event is Methane Mitigation: Technology & Innovation Summit, which will be held on June 2-4, 2025, in Austin, Texas, US. Organised by the Industrial Decarbonisation Network, the summit will bring together energy companies, NGOs and technology innovators. It will serve as a knowledge-sharing platform dedicated to reducing methane emissions from the energy sector. The discussion will largely be focused on exploring cutting-edge solutions and best practices for measuring, monitoring, and reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. India has not signed the Global Methane Pledge, primarily due to concern over the shift in focus from CO2 – which has a lifespan of around 100 years – to Methane – which has a lifespan of 12 years. India's major sources of methane emissions are the livestock sector through enteric fermentation and agriculture through paddy cultivation. These sources are linked to the subsistence activities of small and marginal farmers. Implementing the GMP could negatively impact farmers' incomes, rice production, and India's significant role in global rice exports. Also, these emissions in India are considered 'survival emissions' – essential for food security – not 'luxury emissions', unlike in developed nations where agriculture is industrialised. To reduce methane emissions, no additional burden can be imposed on the small farmers who are already economically marginalised. Nonetheless, India has undertaken measures to reduce methane emissions. Under the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), the government is promoting methane-reducing practices in rice cultivation. Methane mitigation initiatives such as the system for rice intensification, direct seeded rice, and the crop diversification programme are being implemented. Also, to reduce methane production in livestock initiatives such as breed improvement and balanced rationing, have been taken by The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD), through the National Livestock Mission. Programmes like GOBAR-Dhan and the National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme incentivise the use of cattle waste for biogas production and organic manure, promoting clean energy and lowering greenhouse gas emissions in rural areas. Methane is responsible for around 30% of global warming. If left unaddressed, global methane emissions caused by human activities are expected to increase by as much as 13% between 2020 and 2030. Reducing methane emissions is the most important climate step the world can take. However, it is easier said than done, especially for a developing country like India, where methane emissions are related to food security. To tackle the situation, a substantial flow of climate finance from developed to developing countries would enable ambitious climate action, including slashing methane emissions. Additionally, crop diversification schemes would aid the efforts by encouraging a shift away from monoculture towards a more varied and sustainable agricultural system. Similarly, the energy sector, which also accounts for significant methane emissions, offers some of the most immediate and cost-effective opportunities for methane reduction. Developed countries, having historically been the largest producers and consumers of fossil fuels, are well-positioned to lead reforms. They may choose to incentivise methane reduction in developing countries through climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Moreover, cutting methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector is easier to detect and measure and having relatively few large companies as actors can make the enforcement a lot easier as compared to the agriculture sector, where solutions are linked to livelihoods and food security. The upcoming Methane Mitigation Summit has the potential to accelerate action in the energy sector and success here could set the stage for broader efforts across harder to abate sectors. Post Read Questions Why has reducing methane emission been recognised as one of the most effective and affordable strategies to reduce global warming? Why has India not joined the Global Methane Pledge? Analyse the socio-economic and agricultural factors behind this decision. Discuss measures India has undertaken to reduce methane emissions. How do programmes like GOBAR-Dhan and the National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme contribute to methane mitigation? Evaluate the effectiveness of sector-specific approaches (such as energy and agriculture) in addressing methane emissions. What lessons can be drawn from India's domestic efforts? Analyse the role of international platforms like COP summits in shaping methane mitigation strategies. How effective have these efforts been in addressing methane emission? (Renuka is a Doctoral researcher at Himachal Pradesh National law university, Shimla.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
