From Hilary Chiew
I read with interest the reactions to the exclusion of Malaysia at the April 22 to 23 talks dubbed Leaders Summit on Climate organised by the US as a snub or dismissal of the country’s role in the global fight against climate change.
First and foremost, it has to be pointed out that the rightful place to discuss or negotiate any climate action plans lies within the ambit of the 197-member United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
While any country or entity is free to organise any initiative outside the framework of this convention, the outcomes certainly cannot be imposed on non-participating countries.
The invitation by US President Joe Biden to 40 leaders of the world to attend the virtual summit is to resurrect the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF), launched by his predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2009.
The 17-member MEF, representing 80% of the world emissions and gross national product, aims to facilitate dialogue between developed and developing countries at a time when the carbon emission cut treaty — the Kyoto Protocol — only requires developed nations to reduce their emissions.
Fast forward to 2015, the rich nations with their historical emissions that gave rise to climate change got what they wanted — the Paris Agreement — a global treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol and every member state of the UNFCCC is now obliged to take on emission reduction targets.
The April summit is also in line with Biden’s mantra “America is back”. He wants to reinstate his country’s so-called leadership role in global climate governance. It is geopolitics at play, especially at this juncture of tension between China and the US, the two major economies that are also the world’s top two emitters.
Climate change is one of the few global issues that the US is seeking to cooperate with China in the hope that it could still contain the rise of China.
While the Obama and Biden regimes were committed to global climate action, it is important to recall that despite signing up for the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, Clinton’s administration could not get the Senate’s approval to ratify it on grounds of harm to the American economy and that the differentiated responsibilities between developed and developing countries was unfair.
Needless to say, the subsequent Republican regime under George Bush Jr ignored the Kyoto Protocol. And in more recent times, another Republican leader, President Donald Trump, pulled out of the Paris Agreement.
It is equally important to remember that the obligatory cut under Phase One of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) is a mere 5% from the 1990 emissions level. And the US was the top emitter until it was overtaken by China in 2008.
According to the White House statement on the summit, the US said it will announce an ambitious 2030 emissions target as its new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) at the summit.
The NDC is a country’s plan in playing its part to implement the Paris Agreement. It covers not only mitigation but also adaptation measures. In the case of developing countries, it includes the level of external financial, technical and technology support it would require.
As the tensions between the two big powers seem to be escalating after the explosive Alaska meeting in mid-March, the world will be watching closely how the talks pan out.
On the sidelines of last September’s United Nations General Assembly, President Xi Jinping reaffirmed his country’s commitment to peak emissions by 2030 and announced that China would aim for carbon neutrality by 2060, 10 years after the developed countries.
Biden has since said he wants details of the Chinese plan, casting doubts on Xi’s promise.
Under the Paris Agreement, member states are required to submit their respective NDC upon ratification of the treaty. This could be fulfilled either by submitting a fresh document or simply converting the pre-ratification document, called the intended NDC, if they had already submitted one.
Subsequently, they could either provide new or updated NDC every five years, regardless of the timeframe of their respective NDC.
As the US’ first NDC timeframe was a five-year plan from 2020 to 2025, it was therefore required to provide new NDC five years before expiry. However, it did not do so last year as it had already exited the Paris Agreement.
China, like most countries, submitted a 10-year plan and is not due to submit a new plan until 2025. It is only required to update its first NDC (2021-2030) last year. An update could include additional information for clarity purposes.
Another point of contention could be the need to limit planetary warming to the 1.5°C goal, according to scientific advice.
Under Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”.
A stronger ambition must be accompanied with even stronger financial commitment from rich nations, which are the historical emitters.
The US, in particular, has pledged US$3 billion (RM12.4 billion) to the Green Climate Fund, the operating entity of the financial mechanism, but has only transferred US$1 billion prior to Trump assuming office.
Leaders of developing countries at the summit are likely to remind their industrialised counterparts of the financial target of US$100 billion by 2020 and their commitment for more financial assistance post-2020.
With the guidance of their respective climate envoys — the US’ John Kerry and China’s Xie Zhenhua — who had numerous encounters in the last decade and in the presence of 38 other leaders, it is likely that the summit will not degenerate into another hostile exchange between the two powers.
At least not when the cameras are still rolling.
(At the time of writing, China has yet to accept the invitation.)
Hilary Chiew is a freelance researcher focusing on forestry and climate change issues.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.