CBAM, which is set to go into effect at the start of 2026 once it is confirmed by the European Council and European Parliament, is a tariff on carbon-intensive imported goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen. Through these efforts, the EU pushes cleaner production abroad and a decrease in carbon leakage. The agreement effectively urges governments to step up their climate efforts or risk losing competitiveness in the market, making the EU the global leader in sustainability. 

While the deal may seem like a step in the right direction, the developing world has expressed serious disapproval toward the tariff, arguing that the measure discriminates against poor nations that do not have the administrative capacity or climate regulations to comply with CBAM. For instance, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman denounced the tariff as “unilateral and arbitrary,” acting as a “trade barrier” to the fastest-growing economies. As a result, New Delhi notified the WTO of their plans to retaliate via a retaliatory tariff. 

The EU’s largest exporters in sectors covered by CBAM include Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Egypt and Morocco. However, some of these countries, particularly the EU’s trading partners with developing economies such as Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Bhutan and Jamaica, lack the economic and geopolitical power to impose tariffs. The GDP of developing countries is expected to decline between 1.4% and 2.4% depending on the final Greenhouse gas (GHG) price. As a result, their response will likely take the form of legal disputes at the WTO. 

Furthermore, CBAM can be viewed as a message to major economies and significant GHG emitters of the EU’s commitment to safeguard its domestic priorities. Zhao, Deputy Minister of China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, claimed China staunchly opposed any unilateral measures that increased costs. “China always respects multilateral practices,” he added. This perspective also anticipates retaliatory responses, such as potential trade conflicts. 

Researchers at the Swedish Institute for European Studies have expressed that expanding BRICS coalition could act as a counterbalance to the EU, potentially competing to shape the future global economic and trade landscape. Green protectionism can force countries to join cooperative partnerships that could reverse decarbonization efforts by encouraging less environmentally aligned economic interests. Consequently, addressing the geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges posed by the CBAM will be a crucial task for the EU. 

While impending trade disputes and wars pose a significant threat to the multilateral trade regime, the pressing urgency of the climate crisis makes it vital to not abandon the CBAM. Rather, the EU must ensure it accommodates the economic needs of developing nations to foster a less discriminatory and effective approach to global trade. 

The EU should adopt a carbon-pricing mechanism that goes beyond a direct carbon tax. It should include both explicit prices and other indirect measures that impact the cost of emitting GHGs, like taxes on fuel or cuts to fossil fuel subsidies. In short, it counts all the costs that make carbon-emitting activities more expensive, even if those costs aren’t labeled specifically as carbon fees. For many developing countries, direct carbon taxes or emissions trading systems are challenging to implement because they require significant resources, infrastructure and administrative capacity. However, virtually every country already has policies that indirectly discourage emissions, like fuel taxes or energy efficiency standards. It would also encourage a gradual transition so developing nations could build up their climate policies without facing immediate trade penalties. Reforms that reduce subsidies to fossil fuel consumption have taken place in many developing countries, such as Ghana and Sudan.

Lastly, the EU’s current CBAM doesn’t qualify as a “border carbon adjustment” according to the WTO because it violates articles II, III, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A border carbon adjustment (BCA) that includes explicit and indirect measures is compatible with WTO law because it is not a unilateral action. According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, BCA mechanisms designed to allow for more leeway in climate policy should be seen as “multilateral universalism”. Thus, policies of this nature should face less stringent scrutiny under WTO rules as the GHG pricing mechanisms being introduced have been implicitly accepted by WTO members. This is evident from their collective endorsement of international climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact. Even nations like China are likely to be supportive.

Thus, the EU must implement a fair and bold carbon border tax now. Absent a WTO-compliant BCA, Daniel Esty, a leading expert on climate change governance, warns, “I can imagine a scenario whereby they’re challenged not once or twice, but a dozen, 15, 20, 30, 40 times within the first six months.” Such legal uncertainties could also escalate into a global trade war, threatening economic stability and international cooperation on climate action. For the EU, this moment calls for decisive action to lead by example and pave the way for a sustainable and equitable global trading system.

The post The EU CBAM Conundrum: Balancing Climate Goals with Trade Justice for Developing Countries appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The largest tropical area being confronted with deforestation is the Amazon Rainforest. As it is about the same size as the United States and home to over three million different species, the destructive practice is guaranteed to have a drastic impact on both humans and the environment. 

Deforestation has many harmful effects, from global warming to air pollution, but one of the most underrated impacts of this procedure is the increased risk of another pandemic.

When clearing an area, it isn’t just trees that are being removed. Animals are faced with the choice of living in unhealthy and unsafe conditions or being displaced. It is when this decision happens that the risk of a zoonotic disease increases. 

Let’s say that the disease-carrying animal decides to move. Once leaving their habitat, they may enter a new environment not prepared or equipped to handle the disease this animal has. This is especially true in urban areas where sanitation is already a health concern. These animals now interact with humans on a much larger scale than before, allowing for the transmission of a disease to be a much quicker and smoother process. This is emphasized by the fact that these areas don’t have the resources or knowledge to fight off these new diseases. Towns and cities located close to deforestation areas are hotspots for zoonotic diseases to spread.

The same problems arise even if the disease-carrying animal stays in its habitat. Most of the deforested land in the Amazon is used for cattle ranching and farmland, meaning that humans are now working and living on land that they hadn’t used before. Once again, these animals are in contact with people in an unprepared and vulnerable state, making conditions perfect for zoonotic transfer. Both of these scenarios consist of increased human exposure to zoonoses, highlighting the root of zoonosis outbreaks.

To take things a step further and consider what may turn a possible epidemic into a full-blown pandemic, the environmental impacts of deforestation must also be considered.

As mentioned before, mass deforestation has been proven to lead to global warming and climate change overall. This massive transition in temperature has allowed for regions once not considered habitual for certain species to now be places where new life can grow, allowing for new diseases to spread.

Looking back at malaria, the type of mosquito that carries this disease needs tropical conditions. Well, as the temperature of the Earth climbs up, these conditions become much more common and new areas can be home to these mosquitos. Once considered eliminated from the United States, malaria reappeared in 2023 with nine locally transmitted cases reported by people who hadn’t recently traveled to any tropical areas. 

So, not only are disease-carrying animals able to spread regionally, but also internationally. Malaria isn’t the only disease popping back up in Global North countries. So far, eight cases of dengue fever have been reported as locally transmitted in LA County. Before this year, the mosquito-transmitted disease had never been locally transmitted in California. Similar to malaria, the West Nile virus transfers through mosquito bites and, just like malaria, is increasing in numbers in Global North countries as the globe continues to heat up. 

As zoonotic diseases begin to spread more into countries unprepared for this type of problem, the likelihood of a pandemic occurring increases.

Faced with this possibility, the call to mitigate deforestation of the Amazon has never been more necessary. It is the responsibility of the governments and departments in control of the Amazonian region to address this issue. New policies must be implemented that will strike down illegal deforestation practices. For areas near these destructive practices, the goal should be promoting awareness of potential health hazards as well as preparing in case of an outbreak so the disease will be contained. While it can’t be guaranteed that zoonoses won’t spread, procedures and preparations can be put in place to ready nations for when a disease does have the potential to cause a pandemic.

The post How Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest May lead to the next Pandemic appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty designed to facilitate international cooperation in combating climate change. Originally signed in 1992, it aims to limit further increases in average global temperature by regulating nations’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 1995, the Convention’s signatories have annually gathered for what is known as the Conference of Parties (COP). At this conference, individual countries’ inventories of their yearly emissions are reviewed to assess the efficacy of each signatory’s measures against climate change. This data is used to evaluate the progress made towards the Convention’s overarching goal. 

Citing the “need [for]action, not more talk,” Papua New Guinea vowed to skip this year’s COP29. If PNG keeps its promise, it will become one of the first states to completely withdraw participation from a COP summit. 

However, it is far from the first body to criticize COP’s attempts to address climate change. 

Climate activists have long criticized the COP for failing repeatedly to deliver on its lofty promises to address the consequences of climate change. In its third year, the COP summit was labeled a “tragedy and a farce” by environmental protection group Greenpeace. This was in response to COP3 delegates settling on emission reduction targets far below those recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Additionally, COP has faced much censure from developing nations for allowing advanced countries to dominate policy negotiations at their expense. This is particularly evident in the decade-long struggle to secure “loss and damage” funding for developing nations significantly impacted by climate change. Though Vanuatu introduced the concept of such funds as early as 1991, developed nations were reluctant to acknowledge that they are disproportionately responsible for climate change and consequently owe reparations to those suffering its effects. As such, these funds were not mentioned in an official UNFCCC document until 2007 and not implemented until 2022. 

In particular, the Pacific Islands are a major source of COP criticism because they are one of the regions most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Thanks to warmer waters and ocean currents, sea levels rise twice as fast as the global average. Over the next thirty years, NASA predicts that sea levels around the Pacific Islands will rise by at least six inches, posing great danger to the 90% of the region’s residents who live within three miles of a coast. 

Future aside, climate change has already begun transforming life in the Pacific Islands for the worse. Rising sea levels contaminate freshwater sources, threatening local water supplies needed for drinking and agriculture. Furthermore, the ocean is acidifying and its surface temperature is increasing, prompting changes in the behavior of local marine species that endanger locals’ fishing livelihoods. These effects simultaneously enable the spread of climate-sensitive diseases and increase the threat of health risks stemming from environmental hazards like unsafe water.  

Despite their position on the frontline of the battle against climate change, the Pacific Islands have been shut out of COP negotiations. After COP28, delegates from the Pacific Islands reported that they “weren’t in the [plenary]room when this decision was gavelled.” In other words, the remaining countries finalized the terms of COP’s concluding agreement for the year without input from anyone with a stake in the region. 

As a result, the final text contains a “litany of loopholes.” For example, it reads that countries will “transition away” from fossil fuels because parties could not choose between “phase out” or “phase down.” According to Pacific climate campaigner Drue Slatter, the imprecise nature of “transition away” merely encourages a reduction in fossil fuels rather than demands it. 

This all but spells disaster for the Pacific Islands. 

As Samoan climate activist Brianna Fruean explains, “science tells us that 1.5 degrees is [the Pacific Islands’]survival line. And in order for us to make it to 1.5, we need a phase-out of fossil fuels.” However, the final wording of the COP28 agreement does not specify the extent to which fossil fuels need to be cut or establish a timeline for doing so, thus allowing nations to get away with continuing to use fossil fuels. 

Given the increasingly dire stakes and the inefficiency of COP negotiations, PNG’s withdrawal from COP29 is far from unreasonable. 

However, other leaders and climate activists from the Pacific Islands are concerned that PNG’s boycott of COP29 will undermine the region’s overall authority at the summit. Kim Allen, a climate activist from Papua New Guinea, said that the COP summit is an opportunity to amplify the voice of the Pacific Islands by presenting a united front. From this point of view, PNG’s absence could reduce the Pacific Islands’ ability to leverage its influence as a collective region, potentially diluting its role in COP29 negotiations. 

On the other hand, PNG’s withdrawal may eventually generate more effective results than the ones COP can produce. In his announcement of the boycott, Tkatchenko shared that PNG will instead pursue bilateral climate agreements with “like-minded countries” who “can do 100 times more than COP.” Focusing on bilateral agreements would reduce the number of competing demands that must be addressed, minimizing the challenges associated with writing an agreement that satisfies the almost 200 countries attending COP29. 

With those challenges out of the way, Papua New Guinea can devote more attention to creating and implementing actionable climate commitments that address climate change in a specific and timely manner. Strategically picking nations to work with also eliminates the risk of progress being hindered by nations who do not share the same dedication to mitigating the effects of climate change.   

As world leaders prepare for COP29, Papua New Guinea’s withdrawal from the summit sends a clear message that climate-vulnerable nations can no longer afford to wait for COP to deliver measurable results. More than that, it is a declaration that they are ready to chart their own course in the fight against climate change. 

As Tkatchenko said, “Papua New Guinea will no longer wait for empty words while our people suffer. We are taking control of our destiny.” 

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Climate Credibility Crisis: Papua New Guinea Exits COP29 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The threat of Indonesia losing its capital to climate change is legitimate and alarming. Thus, it has forced the Indonesian authorities to take action and begin planning the relocation of their capital city. Indonesian President Joko Widodo has decided the capital will be relocated from Jakarta to the province of East Kalimantan, on Borneo. However, Indonesia is by no means the only country that will have to face the consequences of climate change. Making Indonesians’ voice heard is important when it comes to plans of action, such as the pathways of what relocating one’s capital looks like, what steps of action are needed to ensure the safety of all citizens, and what other measures can be taken. 

Currently, Indonesia has the fastest-sinking city in the world, and according to specialists at the Bandung Institute of Technology, “over 95 percent of North Jakarta will be drowned by 2050.” Indonesia is sinking at an alarming rate with sea levels rising 11 inches a year, leaving about 40% of the capital below sea level. The sea levels have increased not only due to overall climate change and melting glaciers, but is exacerbated by the fact that the city is in a valley so the mountain water is relentless in its arrival.  

Amidst these factors, Indonesia has taken actions to mitigate the flooding, particularly after a significant flood in 2013. The Indonesian government made renovations by cleaning reservoirs and flood canals. Another significant effort is the National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD), a project to be completed in 2027. This project includes the construction of a seawall and 17 new artificial islands around Jakarta Bay. While there already exists a coastal wall around part of the northern coast, an expansion is needed. However, because the coast is sinking beneath the wall, some argue this is not a lasting solution. 

Indonesia is the third-largest tropical forest in the world, meaning there are many factors at risk with this relocation. For example, the province of East Kalimantan, where Indonesia’s new capital will be, is home to significant biodiversity. At present, East Kalimantan comprises 18 million acres of tropical forest. Thus upon relocation of infrastructure as significant and massive as the new capital, there will be severe environmental losses — such as potentially harming the remaining 5% of the planet’s wild orangutans. To counter the negative environmental effects of relocation, Kalimantan is conducting efforts to preserve its ecosystem, including decreasing deforestation and reducing emissions.

However, Kalimantan’s environmental efforts will be quickly undermined if the capital relocation fails to conduct substantial measures to enhance the sustainability and preservation of their new capital island. According to Dwi Sawung, an official with the Indonesian Forum for Living Environment, an Indonesian environmental non-governmental organization, this is only one of the complications that will be faced by Kalimanta. Sawung states, “There are threats to water systems and risks of climate change, threats to flora and fauna, and threats of pollution and environmental damage.” Going forward, Indonesian authorities must proceed with caution upon their imminent relocation.  

The global example of how to handle circumstances caused by climate change will be dictated by Indonesia. Indonesia’s drastic actions relating to environmental preservation and the relocation of infrastructure will set a precedent for coastal states in the next decade. The international community must acknowledge that Indonesia is an integral part of this conversation, whether it is in the broader international agenda or internally. In the international community, within the Convention on Climate Change (COP27)  Indonesia urged “developed countries that have not updated their NDC 2030 target, to immediately raise their mitigation, adaptation, and implementation facility ambition at COP-27.” Within the Indo-Pacific region, Indonesia can relate to the island nations that face climate displacement of not only their major capitals, but also of their equally important small villages throughout the nation. 
The circumstances force people in the field of international relations to confront the challenging but essential matters of diplomacy, logistics and survival, as Indonesians become “climate migrants seeking lives in places that are drier and higher above sea level.” This is an unfortunate fate that many nations and citizens will have to face due to the rapid climate change consequences. Thus, the actions taken by Indonesia cannot go ignored and must be closely analyzed for the fact that many will share.

The post Jakarta is Sinking appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Reports from these protests depict Iranian women ripping off their headscarves, setting them on fire, and chopping off their hair. Muslim women are continuing to protest against the oppressive culture and overarching dress codes for women. According to the New York Times, the average protestor is 15, yet, despite being youth-oriented, Iranian forces have responded with violent suppression. Human Rights Activists News Agency reported that over 500 people including 70 children have been killed, hundreds have been injured, and more than 19,600 have been arrested. 

As a young woman living across the globe, the oppressive and lethal actions used against women in Iran are disheartening and disturbing. As the world continues to witness this injustice, one can’t help but feel a sense of doubt about the future of gender equality. While the events taking place certainly frustrate feminists everywhere, this oppression should be equally troubling for another, seemingly unrelated group: climate activists 

Climate change is not gender-neutral. Based on findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, evidence supports that the populations most vulnerable to climate change are marginalized groups in poor, primarily developing countries. These statistics parallel the fact that 70% of the 1.3 billion people living under the poverty line are women. Existing inequalities leave women disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, mainly because they compose the majority of the world’s impoverished and are proportionally more dependent on natural resources. Globally, women have limited access to the tools that would expand their ability to adapt to climate change—land, credit, agricultural inputs and decision-making structures. However, women are not helpless victims in the changing world; in fact, they may be one of the most viable solutions.

Project Drawdown is a non-profit organization and climate change mitigation project. In 2017, the organization published the New York Times Best Seller Drawdown, which highlighted and outlined the most comprehensive and viable solutions to reversing climate change. On a list of 80, the organization ranked women-related solutions as the 6th and 7th most effective plans to draw down carbon emissions: “Educating Girls” and “Family Planning.” The oppression and marginalization of women, like the current maltreatment of Iranian women, is harming the entire planet. As the next generation assumes their roles as global leaders, women must be at the forefront of the conversation as they will play a critical role in the fate of our planet.  

According to UNICEF Data, gender disparities for girls in primary school are persistent throughout Africa and the Middle East. In 2019, Iranian girls were being deprived of education at a rate three times greater than boys, and 60% of the illiterate population in Iran were women. On Mar. 2, 2023, CNN released reports on protests in Iran’s capital Tehran over a wave of suspected poison at dozens of schools. Hundreds of schoolgirls were poisoned, leading some politicians to believe that the girls were targeted by extreme Islamist groups who oppose girls’ education. 

While seemingly unrelated, excluding women from education is doing harm far beyond literacy rates. The education of girls has a dramatic impact on global warming because there is a positive correlation between the amount of education a woman receives and her management of reproductive health. The exponential population growth, paired with increasing consumption, has escalated the emission of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. According to a study done by the Science journal in 2011, if all nations achieved a 100% enrollment of girls in primary and secondary school, by 2050 there would be 843 million fewer people worldwide. 

Even more remarkable is that the difference between a woman with no education and with 12 years of schooling is almost four to five children. By giving women the opportunity to pursue an education they become more empowered at home, at work, and in society. Educated girls are a powerful way to break a cycle of intergenerational poverty because educated women receive higher wages and gain more economic mobility. They are less likely to marry as children or against their will, slowing population growth and mitigating emissions.  

Alongside education, women will only be an effective tool in reversing climate change if the existing gender gaps dispersed throughout global society are drastically reduced. A woman’s autonomy over her own body will be a pivotal starting point. According to Project Drawdown’s ranking, family planning is the 7th most comprehensive solution to reducing climate change, and it all begins with women having a choice. In 2017, there were reportedly 225 million women in lower-income nations that wanted self-governance over their choice to become pregnant but lacked the necessary resources and contraceptives. In turn, this has resulted in 74 million accidental pregnancies each year. Project Drawdown predicts that investment in family planning could result in a reduction of 123 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions, with 50% of the total potential emission reductions being attributed to educating girls because there is a close connection between the two solutions. 

An early 1990s Iranian program for family planning is a striking success story involving religious leaders, educating the public, and providing free contraception. The program resulted in fertility rates dropping by 50% in just a decade, demonstrating that this is an effective working model. However, the nation must continue to make life for women more equitable, especially as it relates to family planning. 

The death of Mahsa Amini was a tragic representation of the gender disparities still affecting the global community —disparities that are not isolated to developing countries. While women in Iran protest for their own sovereignty, they are advocating for an issue bigger than all of us. The repercussions of gendered oppression serve as a poignant reminder that these issues are intersectional and will harm every individual regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity if a change is not fast approaching in the foreseeable future. As the most impacted, the welfare of women should be highly considered in how the world proceeds against global warming; however, as one of the most comprehensive solutions, women also deserve to be at the forefront of climate conversations. 

The post Iran, Women and Climate Crisis: Why Gender Equality Needs to Be at the Forefront of Climate Conversations appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

“100% sustainable.” 

Not the words one would typically associate with the Olympics, of all things, but it was one of the big stories of the 2022 Beijing Olympics. 

All venues were powered using green energy, carbon offsetting was used to make up for any carbon emissions produced during the games and more sustainable construction practices were used to build the facilities. 

Despite all of this, one could not help but notice the giant cooling towers that loomed in the background of the big air venue as snowboarders and skiers twirled in the air. While these towers are no longer in operation, they do represent an interesting contrast — not only at the Olympics, but for China as a whole. 

There is no denying China’s growing role in the sustainability movement. Beijing is both the world’s largest producer of solar and wind energy and the largest investor, domestically and abroad, in green energy. In addition, China supplies the vast majority of solar panel materials to the United States and other countries. 

However, one sustainable energy source which has declined in the United States and other countries is surging forward in China, on the trajectory to becoming one of its largest sources of energy. 

That energy? Nuclear. 

Despite this interest in expanding nuclear energy, however, China’s use of fossil fuels — coal in particular — has also risen in recent years. Just last month, the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported that the coal supply will increase in the country, in addition to power plants running at maximum capacity to help meet electricity demand. 

On the one hand, China remains a superpower in renewable energy. On the other, they continue to rely on coal for basic energy needs. 

So, what exactly are China’s sustainable energy goals? And how does nuclear energy fit into the overall picture?

China and Nuclear Energy 

In terms of overall nuclear energy output, the United States remains the highest, holding 30.8% of the global nuclear energy consumption to China’s 13.6%. However, China leads the world in nuclear plant construction and plans to build 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years in contrast to the United States, which has shut down 39 facilities as of April 2021. 

Given China’s massive population, it makes sense that the government will pursue the investment in nuclear energy to complement its green transition. 

This is because nuclear energy is extremely reliable and can produce more energy than sustainable competitors. It has the highest capacity factor out of any energy source at almost 93%, which essentially means it is running at 100% power for almost the entire year. Due to minimal maintenance requirements and longevity, nuclear power plants can run longer and more reliably than other forms of energy, (sustainable and fossil fuels alike). 

“Domestically, nuclear power also makes sense for China from the standpoint of energy security,” said Kelly Sanders, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California in an interview with US-China Today. As the recent conflict in Ukraine has revealed, the fossil fuel market is extremely volatile. Switching to nuclear helps shore up these shortages. 

Sanders also noted how “nuclear is a direct substitute for coal.” Both deliver electricity; thus, one can shut down a coal plant and replace it with a nuclear one, with the added benefits of less air pollution and a more reliable, consistent energy supply. 

It is for these reasons that China and Chinese President Xi Jinping have been adamant about expanding nuclear energy in the country, advertising a plan to spend over $440 billion in the next 15 years to create new nuclear energy reactors. 

This is the type of money countries like the United States aspire to spend on their sustainable energy sector. U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent infrastructure bill, which was passed after months of concessions and push-backs, for instance, dedicates only $10 billion to nuclear projects. This reveals some of the challenges Western democracies face when trying to address the climate crisis — politics, public opinion and budgetary regulations, among other things. China does not face such setbacks. 

China’s Geopolitical Strategy

But China’s desire to expand its nuclear capacities lies beyond its own domestic agenda. China continues to invest heavily in nuclear technology, becoming one of the primary developers of “Generation 4” reactors. It recently placed into operation one such reactor known as the “Pebble Bed”, which is reportedly “incapable of meltdowns.” 

Not only does this showcase China’s technological growth, but it also reveals their desire to export these reactors to other countries, similar to China’s dominance in the solar panel industry. 

For example, Pakistan has long been a valued customer for Chinese nuclear reactors, with five having been built in the country since 1993. China also recently established an $8 billion deal with Argentina. Moreover, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), it is projected to build 30 reactors by 2030 in a number of participating countries.

As China continues to innovate and produce more efficient reactors, this only further incentivizes other countries, especially in the developing world, to invest in this technology. This, in turn, increases China’s export abilities. 

But it is not all smooth sailing. Many countries remain skeptical about China and its business practices. For one, the United States is an unlikely destination for this technology. As of Aug. 2019, the United States added one of China’s state-owned nuclear companies to a blacklist for allegedly stealing military technology. Romania also canceled its nuclear deal with China and instead signed a partnership with the United States. Other deals with countries such as Kenya and Egypt have also stalled. 

In a larger sense, this skepticism of China’s nuclear program stems from a larger fear of nuclear energy, its potential for disaster, its huge price tag and the toxic waste. “A lot of the world is scared of building more nuclear power plants”, said Sanders. “The world opinion on nuclear energy took a big hit after Fukushima.”

In addition, China has not yet signed various international treaties that set standards for liability in the case of an accident, making other countries more cautious when it comes to importing Chinese reactors and technology, let alone investing in nuclear energy in general.

There is also the problem of uranium. 

China hopes to gain independence from competitors in the energy market through nuclear expansion, and yet, over two-thirds of the total mined Uranium supply in the world lies in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan. China, meanwhile, only has access to around 4% of the world’s Uranium supply. Thus, until nuclear energy begins to transition away from Uranium as a chief source of fuel, China and its partners will continue to rely on other countries for its supply. 

However, Sanders also noted that uranium “is pretty easy to mine, and pretty easy to move, unlike natural gas.” Because of this, “it is a pretty uncontentious fuel to import,” hinting that China should have no issue finding its share of Uranium.

The Broader Context

China’s investment in nuclear energy and its larger push towards renewables comes against the backdrop of declining U.S. leadership in this field. To this point, former U.S. President Donald Trump oversaw a reversal in policies aimed at combating climate change. In response, China criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and reaffirmed its own commitment to meeting future climate goals. 

Although Biden rejoined the Paris accord and has since tried to reestablish the United States as a champion of environmental sustainability, other countries are increasingly turning to China for leadership in tackling the climate crisis. The EU and China have sought cooperation with each other and recently staked out new goals to combat climate change. China no doubt sees this U.S. drop-off as an opportunity to take initiative and establish itself as a global leader in environmental policy. 

It should be noted that through China’s BRI, the production and implementation of high-carbon facilities, mostly coal-fired power plants, are being introduced to host countries. However, many of the projects funded by BRI threaten biodiversity, as well as important ecosystems and water resources. 

Thus, in the coming years, it appears that China will continue to be a leader in sustainable energy practices at home. However, whether this extends to their development partners is yet to be determined. 

This dichotomy calls into question if China’s green transition is for the purpose of sustainability, or merely a political strategy to gain leverage on the global stage. 

The post The Nuclear Option: China’s Expanding Energy Portfolio appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In Favor of The Line: Sari Goldberg

While doubts on the viability of such a futuristic concept like the Line are valid, its creation comes at a time when global society has reached a tipping point in the fight against climate change. The livability and environmental crisis currently facing cities around the world can no longer be ignored, especially as the air quality in cities is worsened as the population, traffic, industrialization and energy use increase. Drastic changes to our ways of living are necessary, and the Line is paving a new path for imaginative solutions.

On July 25, 2022, Royal Highness Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and Chairman of the NEOM Board of Directors, announced the idea for the Line as a city that redefines the concept of urban development. Prince Mohammed said, “NEOM will be a place for all people from across the globe to make their mark on the world in creative and innovative ways. NEOM remains one of the most important projects of Saudi Vision 2030.” Vision 2030 is composed of Saudi policy and projects meant to transform the nation economically and socially. Building of the Line, a key aspect of these reforms, began in October of 2021 and primary residents are expected to move in during 2024. As of July 2022, the first phase is projected to be completed by 2030. 

The Line, while 110 miles long, will preserve 95% of the nature within Neom, the developing city in the Tabuk Province in northwestern Saudi Arabia. With 9 million residents, the Line will have a population density of 260,000 people per square kilometer. In comparison, the most densely populated city in 2020 had 44,000 per square kilometer. 

By compacting the city between the two 1,600 ft high mirrored buildings, separated by a 660 ft outdoor space, the city is directly combating negative impacts of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas, creating low-density communities. It increases the need for transportation and reduces the land available for agriculture, exacerbating air and water pollution and limiting the landscape available to capture carbon dioxide. The sustainable city’s design is composed of vertically layered communities, which will challenge the traditional horizontal city and preserve nature, as well as enhance human livability. 

Energy production is the leading cause of unsustainable living, accounting for two-thirds of total greenhouse gas emission. By 2030, the world will face economic losses of $2 billion a day from climate-related issues. In response, the city will run on 100% renewable energy, shifting the country away from its primarily oil-based economy. 

The development will be zero-carbon through the elimination of carbon-intensive infrastructure like cars and roads. Mobility will be accessible by a high-speed rail with an end-to-end transit time of just 20 minutes. Residents will have access to all necessary facilities within a five-minute walk. The accessibility and convenience will reduce commutes, creating more time for leisure. Reducing former expenses, like car insurance and fuel, will also give residents higher disposable income. 

According to press releases, the Line will have the most food autonomy in the world. Currently, Saudi Arabia imports around 80% of its food, but the city plans to include greenhouses and vertical farming to reduce its external reliance drastically. 

While construction of the Line has just begun, it brings a new wave of ideas to the table. Addressing climate change will require large-scale actions taken by the most prominent actors on the world stage. According to an annual ranking by the CEOWORLD magazine, Saudi Arabia was named the 11th most powerful country in the world and first in the Islamic and Arab world for 2021. As the world’s second largest oil producer and largest exporter of oil, Saudi Arabia will be a key player as the global community is forced to address climate change. Even if the Line is the most dramatic solution seen by the international community, Saudi ambitions should inspire others to incorporate some of its goals and aspirations. The planet is changing, so the world must be prepared to change alongside it. 

Against The Line: Jasmijn Teunissen

Construction of the seemingly utopian city proposed in Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s promotional video should not continue as it is financially and environmentally unsustainable. The design of the Line goes against traditional urban sprawl, as cities tend to expand outward as they grow. “Hub-and-spoke” transit systems tend to work best; where arms of transit are connected to avoid individuals having to travel back to a central transit station. The unique composition of the Line would thus require advanced transit technology to be efficient and achieve the promised travel time of 20 minutes across 160 miles. Transit technology required to reach the speed of 318 mph (512 km/h), does not currently exist as it outpaces current high-speed-rail technology. 

Despite marketing for the Line emphasizing sustainability and ‘zero-carbon emissions’ expert urban planners are skeptical of the embodied carbon impact of building the Line and all associated infrastructure. The massive height of the Line would require strength to withstand wind. Professor Philip Oldfield of UNSW claims “You cannot build a 500-meter-tall building out of low-carbon materials,” as it would need a “phenomenal quantity of steel, glass and concrete.” He estimates that construction of the Line would produce upwards of 1.8 billion tons of embodied carbon dioxide, equivalent more than four years of the UK’s entire emissions.

The Line’s design might disrupt biodiversity due to a greater edge effect impacting animal crossing. For migrating birds, for example, the large mirrored structures are highly dangerous. Others accuse the Prince of greenwashing, by making elaborate proposals for the city to distract from reality. The accusations of greenwashing are not the first the Prince has faced, as critics have noted the hard contrast between the nation’s unwavering dependency on oil and extensive environmental commitments such as promises to plant 450 million trees across the country. Saudi Arabia remains a top oil producer and has promised to increase production, despite the fact that to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius global oil production needs to fall by roughly 5% a year between now and 2030.

Construction of the Line threatens human rights, as it would forcibly displace thousands, including the Howeitat tribe which has lived peacefully in the area for generations. On Oct. 7, a Saudi court sentenced three Howeitat members to death for opposing the eviction. The Howeitat tribe sent an urgent request for a UN investigation into allegations of forced displacement and abuse by Saudi authorities.

Doubt of the project’s viability has also resonated amongst Neom employees, evident by the recent wave of resignations. Realization of the Prince’s overly ambitious plan has spread, as dozens of employees have resigned, some senior employees walking out on salaries of up to $1 million a year. The Prince’s initial goal to attract foreign investment through the futuristic project has fallen short, except for discussions with some foreign companies, including Russian ones. The intended completion of the Line is 2030 with an allotted $500 billion, however, some reports contend that the city will likely not be completed until 2050, upping costs significantly to an estimated $1 trillion. The project is funded by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the kingdom’s sovereign wealth private investment fund. The viability of the PIF relies heavily on oil exports, a market characterized by volatility. Many Saudis, unsatisfied with the tax pressure and the belief that the projects are unlikely to yield a substantial return over the short run have expressed dissatisfaction with heavy spending on high-profile projects such as the Line. 

Construction of the Line should not advance. The project goes against successful urban planning models, it threatens biodiversity in the region and continuation of it violates human rights due to forced eviction. 

Conclusion: 

Any unprecedented innovations come with uncertainties. The construction of the Line brings  concerns of adverse environmental impacts, questions of the viability of the architecture, and controversy surrounding forced evictions at the construction site. However, this revolutionized civilization may also usher in a new wave of innovative approaches to tackling pressing contemporary issues in climate justice, renewable energy, and sustainability. As developments in Saudi Arabia continue to progress led by crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, the global community will be watching and anticipating if this radical approach can succeed and thrive.    

The post Saudi Arabia: Is “The Line” a Viable Solution to Climate Change? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Throughout COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, indigenous peoples, politicians from the Global South and climate activists faced systemic repression ranging from large-scale arrests, limited transportation, no interpreters for events, etc. As these groups called for reforms by the Global North, their voices appeared to fall on deaf ears while politicians from the United States, the EU, Canada and more pushed alternatives such as green hydrogen as the way of the future as opposed to a full phase-out of fossil fuels. 

From the beginning of week one, the United States remained firm on its position to not add finances to an additional loss and damage fund, which was a non-negotiable matter for the G-77 and China. As a result, at one point during the talks, these countries suggested they were willing to walk out if such finances were not provided, and while the countries continued to negotiate this issue, due to a lack of consensus, the talks were extended by two additional days. It was in this short extension time that everything drastically shifted.

On Saturday morning, the talks “appeared close to collapse.” Beyond the unresolved issue of a loss and damage fund, debates surrounding clear language on a fossil fuel phase-out and even the inclusion of language surrounding human rights remained. However, the unity of the Global South and civil society positively influenced the final outcomes of negotiations and pushed for an agreed upon resolution that included elements of climate justice. As a result of the outcome, many individuals, such as Ephraim Mwepya Shitima, the chairman of the African Group of Negotiators noted how they “’will be going back smiling’” because the final resolution passed in COP27, the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan, “’is a victory, not only for Africa, but for developing nations.’”

The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan makes tremendous strides in addressing a just transition into renewable energy by recognizing “the important role of indigenous peoples, local communities, cities and civil society, including youth and children, in addressing and responding to climate change.” The resolution also places an emphasis on “common but differentiated responsibilities” and acknowledges the significance of both the cryosphere and oceans when combating the climate crisis. Beyond these efforts to ensure an “equitable transition,” one of the most important elements of the Implementation Plan is the fact that it includes the highly contested loss and damage fund. The resolution ensures that the Global North will establish a fund for those “particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.”

The plan also “[r]esolves to pursue further efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5*C,” yet regardless of this effort and the progress in the realm of climate justice, many scholars have argued that there was actually backsliding on the question of fossil fuel phase-down. In Article 4.13, rather than arguing for a complete phase-out of coal and all other fossil fuels, the text calls for a “phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” Therefore, there is no concrete language to firmly address the driver of climate change – fossil fuels. 

Similar to how civil society and the Global South pushed for a loss and damage fund along with a just transition, the fossil fuel delegation, one of the largest groups at the COP numbering at 636, pushed their own agenda. The efforts of the fossil fuel delegation, which increased 25% from last year, effectively worked with oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia to limit the mention of fossil fuels. As a result, the executive vice president of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans highlights how the final resolution, “puts unnecessary barriers in the way and allows the parties to shy away from their responsibilities.”

Overall, there are many outcomes from COP27, but one of the most significant is the progress made in terms of climate justice. For the first time, there are concrete steps to establishing a loss and damage fund for the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

Yet, there remain many concerns as to the true efficacy of the COP process. As thousands gather from around the world, many of the most powerful decision-makers on privately chartered flights, there remains continued co-optation and repression from the voices most affected by the issue. In contrast, the fossil fuel industry remains one of the most influential delegations, despite their inherent conflict of interest, and they directly impacted the results of COP27. However, given the tumultuous history of the international climate regime and the tangible process that was established in COP27, Sharm el-Sheikh can be largely viewed in a positive light.

Next year, COP28 will be held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates which will present additional challenges beyond those of Egypt. Questions as to the further repression of civil society have already been raised, and discussions about increased accessibility remain to be seen. But after two weeks of hostile negotiations, an agreed-upon Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan that includes a loss and damage fund and has kept the hopes of 1.5°C still alive is a welcomed outcome. 

The post The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan: Climate Justice, Backsliding and Co-optation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This is a clear and present failure of leadership. Sunak and King Charles’ refusal to attend COP27 perfectly demonstrates how little climate change is valued in developed countries’ policy and political affairs. Any involvement, including of the British monarchy through King Charles, would have been a crucial demonstration of leadership and value. Furthermore, Charles is well-known for his love of the environment; it’s unfortunate that he will not step up when the world needs him most. 

As temperatures rise and world leaders fail to develop lasting solutions to these urgent and complex climate issues, we need to shine a light on the consequences of their actions. 

The primary failure is that many Western leaders treat climate change like a secondary matter. It’s not. 2021 was the sixth-warmest year on record. More than 1 million species are at risk of extinction by climate change. Higher temperatures worsen air quality, negatively affect crop production, increase the spread of infectious diseases and threaten freshwater deposits. Additionally, wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters only intensify as global temperatures become more irregular. Climate change also significantly harms coastal communities and people in less-developed countries disproportionately because of their geographic locations and high dependence on natural resources, respectively. Climate change should be everyone’s number one priority.

The United Kingdom was still supposed to be represented by other senior officials at the Conference of Parties. However, the fact that the prime minister and the monarchy proposed not attending is a slap in the face to all officials who do care. And the international community took notice.

After Sunak’s announcement, Greta Thunberg, a famed environmentalist, called out Sunak’s decision to skip the conference and said  “the fact that one of the most powerful people in the world doesn’t have time for this, it’s very symbolic and says that they may have other priorities … which of course can be understandable, but as long as we use these excuses we won’t get anywhere.” 

Last year, Sunak was one of the many Cabinet members at COP26. This year, his original statement not to attend and his choice to restrict King Charles is one that will be remembered in history. 

After facing major backlash, Sunak reversed his decision and is now attending COP27, but the fact that he initially announced not attending the conference highlights his government’s misguided climate priorities. Even during one of the COP meetings, Sunak left after being rushed away by aides. In order to accomplish any substantive progress, COP negotiations need voluntary and active participation from every prominent world leader, including Sunak. Otherwise, the Conference of Parties is pointless.

Rishi Sunak, you can’t avoid climate change. You can’t run away from the major global warming crisis. Regardless of what you may personally believe, climate change should be every country’s number one priority. If you refuse to attend the Conference of Parties, and neglect discussing global warming and your country’s impact on climate change as a major world power, your government represents the biggest threat to a sustainable and secure future. 

Global warming affects our economies, people, agriculture, businesses and weather, among almost every other thing that allows every person on this earth to survive. Right now, more than ever, we need our world leaders to show up and participate in the matter that we care about. Right now, we need climate action.

The post You Can’t Ignore Climate Change, Rishi Sunak appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The apprehension toward COP27 comes after countries failed to meet the $100 billion goal set at COP26 and insufficiently supported countries with lacking infrastructure, which was a prominent critique in the encyclical (papal letter) he published in 2016. Encyclicals are designed to highlight particular issues and help followers understand the teachings of the Church. Moreover, they are meant to be taken seriously and can become “infallible” statements when the pope chooses to go through the process of penning one. 

As such, Pope Francis is using his privileged position and authority as the head of the Catholic Church to encourage Christians to take initiative to help the environment. His public statements about COP27 intend to demonstrate his commitment to the environment and encourage wealthy countries to follow through on their promises. 

Furthermore, the pope has voiced concerns about greenwashing sustainable development and the misuse of the term “green” development. Green development is when a corporation focuses on sustainable development, and greenwashing occurs when corporations put more effort and money into marketing their green development than on their actual environmental impact. He feels that wealthy countries and corporations are making — and publicizing — insufficient changes as a way to greenwash their negative effects on the environment. This is also part of the reason he has been reluctant to show support for global summits, claiming countries have “too many special interests” with “superficial rhetoric.”

Moreover, he discusses the direct impact of corporations and wealthy countries on climate change, specifically by making minimal efforts to mitigate the crisis while being the biggest polluters in the last two centuries and failing to support economically poor countries. Wealthy nations can “conceal” the symptoms while the struggling nations cannot escape the effects of climate change, but migrants from these countries are not classified as refugees despite fleeing from the environmental destruction. 

Pope Francis has also directly called out mining, oil, real estate and other industries as major polluters. Other Catholic theologians have joined him in voicing their concerns for the environmental cost of the summit and the sponsorship of one of the biggest plastic producers, after Francis became vocal in his critique of “throwaway culture.” Coca-Cola has been accused by other climate activists for greenwashing by spending more money on publicizing positive initiatives than on programs to clean up their waste.

The pope has also called out the environmental cost of the transportation to COP27 and past environmental summits. Nearly 200 countries will travel to Egypt to attend the conference, and Pope Francis expressed concern about the economic cost of the airfare. While acknowledging the necessity of air travel, he is also concerned about the detrimental environmental costs. 

Furthermore, the papal letter also focused on the exploitation of the common good as both a cause and consequence of climate change, and how this has caused growing injustices and human rights issues in economically poor countries. Egypt, the host country for COP27, is known for its authoritarian government and numerous human rights violations. The pope traveled to Egypt in 2017 to give a speech on religious violence, specifically against the increase in terrorist attacks against Christians and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s role in the authoritarian government. 

Egypt’s position as the host of COP27 has incentivized it to focus on addressing the human rights violations in the country, but the Catholic Church remains skeptical of the conditions fostered by its domestic inequalities, poverty and conflict. 

Pope Francis’ and the Church’s focus on human rights violations emphasizes that skepticism towards COP27 is warranted because the negotiations may constitute another example of greenwashing.

Climate change has been a primary focus of the Catholic Church since Pope Saint John Paul II, but Pope Francis has made an exceptional effort as pope to combat climate change, noting that it is a human responsibility to take care of the planet. The encyclical he released focused on climate change in a way that no pope has done before and has been incorporated into official Catholic social teachings which encourages the message to be disseminated throughout the Church.

Catholic voices will be present at COP27, with the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the Catholic Sisters planning to send delegations. Catholic perspectives at the summit may encourage countries to make attainable goals and policies that positively influence all countries, not just the wealthy ones. 

While Francis could not attend COP26 due to health concerns and it is remains unclear whether he will be attending this year, he has called for countries to “heed his concerns” and is urging world leaders to take COP27 seriously so as not have another instance of failed promises, “greenwashing” and insufficient policies of sustainable development. 

The pope hopes that Catholic voices at COP27 will encourage countries to create “effective implementation” for the Paris Agreement and to move forward with sustainable development and policy. The countries attending COP27 have an opportunity to make positive change but must focus on making lasting change and true green development that will benefit all nations. 

The post Pope Francis’s Statement on COP27 and Climate Change appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.