The climate talks in Warsaw last year set two tasks for the next round of negotiations in the city of Lima, Peru, at the end of 2014: reaching agreement on the elements of a post-2020 climate agreement; and determining the technical and legislative information required for what is known as the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the pledges each country will make towards fighting climate change.
Exactly what INDCs will include is still debated, with some countries proposing mitigation strategies, and others (mainly developing countries) arguing that they should involve information on climate adaptation and financing.
The future direction is very likely to be one of simultaneous progress on both short- and long-term goals. Nations will need to put forward short term INDC goals, for 2025 and 2030, and in particular emission cuts. Long term goals will be a new round of discussions on carbon neutrality, and 100% use of renewable energy and elimination of coal. All the various players – nations, think-tanks, the UN bodies, international groups, NGOs – will, from their own various stances, push towards these goals. Preparation and strategies for these moves will be needed for future negotiations.
Against this background, the world and the key powers will again enter a period of intense diplomatic and political activity during the latter half of 2014. Though the US will be one of the main players, the role of the European Union should not be ignored.
July will see a new round of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue. According to the US these talks will, besides promoting cooperation in several fields by the China-US Climate Change Working Group, tackle issues which are more politically sensitive and directly relevant to climate negotiations, such as HFCs, a set of potent greenhouse gases, and INDCs.
For the complete article, please see china dialogue.
The scope of national security is expanding beyond violent threats to encompass a broader array of dangers. In an article for World Politics Review, CFR's Stewart M. Patrick assesses the implications of COVID-19 and climate change for the theory and practice of national security.
Although there is no causality nor direct and automatic link between climate change and conflict, we can see that climate change can intensify conflict drivers and make it harder to find stability. The online workshop "Climate change, conflict and fragility: Increasing resilience against climate-fragility risks", organised by the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO) and adelphi, looked into this complex relationship.
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous parallels have been drawn between this health crisis and the climate crisis. Science plays an important role in advising decision makers on how to ensure sustainable crisis management and a precautionary approach to avoid harmful repercussions, particularly where we do not yet know all the consequences of our actions. [...]
Decarbonisation won’t come as fast as the pandemic. But if fossil fuel exporters are not prepared for it, they will face an enduring crisis. The EU can help.