The Philippines’ climate stake in the US elections
The climate deal reached in Paris among 195 nations at the end of 2015 to cut greenhouse gas emissions is now taking effect as enough countries have ratified the agreement. But United States presidential candidate Donald Trump’s promise to roll back this accord will have dangerous consequences if he gets to push this through. The world already paid a heavy price for President George W. Bush’s 2005 decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change among 141 nations; Mr. Trump’s call to “cancel” the 2015 Paris accord will deliver a crushing blow.
Climate inaction will be bad news for the Philippines as the country is among the most vulnerable to the ravages of climate change, with its long coastline, rising sea levels and population concentrations in harm’s way. Though the Philippines accounts for less than one percent of global emissions, the country also needs to take climate action — not just to contribute globally but to benefit from a less polluted local economy. Urgently needed are steps to cut back on fossil fuels, increase renewables in energy production, and improve energy efficiency in agriculture, industry and households.
The United States, China, Brazil, India and the European Union are among the major emitters that have completed the steps required for the Paris accord. The agreement comes into effect when signatories with 55 percent of global emissions ratify the accord: 73 nations representing 57 percent have done so. Among those yet to sign the agreement are Russia, Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines.
Mr. Trump wants to scrap Obama-administration rules limiting emissions from coal- fired power plants, step up fossil-fuel production and roll back support for wind and solar power. His argument that less environmental protection would cut the cost doing business is short-sighted because a race to the bottom in deregulation is known to cause compounding damages. Burning fossil fuels may immediately save money, but a polluted and warming planet will depress productivity and inflict huge health costs.
Mr. Trump’s assertion that there is “no evidence that humans are responsible for climate change” runs counter to scientific evidence. Following an unprecedented and steady rise of carbon emissions over the past century, the planet has been warming. The past 15 years were among the warmest 16 on record, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 2016 promises to be the hottest.
The increase in carbon concentration and global temperature, in turn, has been accompanied by more frequent floods, storms, drought and heat waves, according to worldwide data covering the past half-century. Scientists are careful not to link a particular hazard of nature to climate change. But no country is immune to the ravages from this association.
Indeed, developing countries bear the brunt of the human cost of climate-related disasters, but their incidence and the damage have been rising in the developed countries too. The Louisiana floods were the worst natural hazard in the United States since Superstorm Sandy four years ago, and a record heat wave produced extensive losses when wildfire raced through southern California. In Asia and the Pacific, Australia, China, India and the Philippines have recently been hit by what used to be considered once in a lifetime floods and storms.
The Paris conference was the first time the world’s two biggest emitters, the United States, the largest in per capita terms among big economies, and China, the largest in total emissions, formally agreed to cap the amount of atmospheric carbon. The leadership of these two countries, along with other major contributors matters both for achieving enough emission reductions and for setting an example for others to follow.
That is why it is important to build on the Obama administration’s drive to seek cuts in carbon emissions from power plants. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton intends to speed up the process of switching the economy to a low carbon growth path that Mr. Obama started. Her plan is for one third of electricity to come from renewables by 2027.
At the Paris climate meeting, countries committed to so-called intended nationally determined contributions to help achieve this goal. But new research published in Nature finds that while these contributions will lower greenhouse gas emissions, the median scenario will still result in a warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100 leading to terrifying consequences.
Scientific evidence suggests that to avoid catastrophic scenarios, we need to overshoot the current intended nationally determined contributions agreed to in Paris. This is a chance for the United States as well as the Philippines and others to extend climate actions — not reverse course as Mr. Trump proposes.
* * *