Tag: United States

What are Carbon Markets ?



Carbon Markets: Carbon markets facilitate the trading of emission reductions. Such a market allows countries, or industries, to earn carbon credits for the emission reductions they make in excess of their targets. These carbon credits can be traded to the highest bidder in exchange of money. The buyers of carbon credits can show the emission reductions as their own and use them to meet their reduction targets. Carbon markets are considered a very important and effective instrument to reduce overall emissions.



A carbon market existed under Kyoto Protocol but is no longer there because the Protocol itself expired last year. A new market under Paris Agreement is yet to become functional. Developing countries like India, China or Brazil have large amounts of carbon credits left over because of the lack of demand as many countries abandoned their emission reduction targets. The developing countries wanted their unused carbon credits to be transitioned to the new market, something that the developed nations had been opposing on the grounds that the quality of these credits — the question whether these credits represent actual emission reductions — was a suspect. A deadlock over this had been holding up the finalisation of the rules and procedures of the Paris Agreement.


The Glasgow Pact has offered some reprieve to the developing nations. It has allowed these carbon credits to be used in meeting countries’ first NDC targets. These cannot be used for meeting targets in subsequent NDCs. That means, if a developed country wants to buy these credits to meet its own emission reduction targets, it can do so till 2025. Most countries have presented climate targets for 2025 in their first NDCs.

The resolution of the deadlock over carbon markets represents one of the major successes of COP26.

Achievements of the Glasgow Summit 2021




What was achieved?

Mitigation: The Glasgow agreement has emphasised that stronger action in the current decade was most critical to achieving the 1.5-degree target. Accordingly, it has:

1. Asked countries to strengthen their 2030 climate action plans, or NDCs (nationally-determined contributions), by next year.

2. Established a work programme to urgently scale-up mitigation ambition and implementation.

3. Decided to convene an annual meeting of ministers to raise ambition of 2030 climate actions.

4. Called for an annual synthesis report on what countries were doing.

5. Requested the UN Secretary General to convene a meeting of world leaders in 2023 to scale-up ambition of climate action.

6. Asked countries to make efforts to reduce usage of coal as a source of fuel, and abolish “inefficient” subsidies on fossil fuels
Has called for a phase-down of coal, and phase-out of fossil fuels. This is the first time that coal has been explicitly mentioned in any COP decision. It also led to big fracas at the end, with a group of countries led by India and China forcing an amendment to the word “phase-out” in relation to coal changed to “phase-down”. The initial language on this provision was much more direct. It called on all parties to accelerate phase-out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies. It was watered down in subsequent drafts to read phase-out of “unabated” coal power and “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies. But even this was not liking to the developing countries who then got it changed to “phase down unabated coal power and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support to the poorest and the most vulnerable in line with national circumstances…”. Despite the dilution, the inclusion of language on reduction of coal power is being seen as a significant movement forward.



Adaptation: Most of the countries, especially the smaller and poorer ones, and the small island states, consider adaptation to be the most important component of climate action. These countries, due to their lower capacities, are already facing the worst impacts of climate change, and require immediate money, technology and capacity building for their adaptation activities.

As such, the Glasgow Climate Pact has:

Asked the developed countries to at least double the money being provided for adaptation by 2025 from the 2019 levels. In 2019, about $15 billion was made available for adaptation that was less than 20 per cent of the total climate finance flows. Developing countries have been demanding that at least half of all climate finance should be directed towards adaptation efforts.


Created a two-year work programme to define a global goal on adaptation. The Paris Agreement has a global goal on mitigation — reduce greenhouse gas emissions deep enough to keep the temperature rise within 2 degree Celsius of pre-industrial times. A similar global goal on adaptation has been missing, primarily because of the difficulty in defining such a target. Unlike mitigation efforts that bring global benefits, the benefits from adaptation are local or regional. There are no uniform global criteria against which adaptation targets can be set and measured. However, this has been a long-pending demand of developing countries and the Paris Agreement also asks for defining such a goal.



Finance: Every climate action has financial implications. It is now estimated that trillions of dollars are required every year to fund all the actions necessary to achieve the climate targets. But, money has been in short supply. Developed countries are under an obligation, due to their historical responsibility in emitting greenhouse gases, to provide finance and technology to the developing nations to help them deal with climate change. In 2009, developed countries had promised to mobilise at least $100 billion every year from 2020. This promise was reaffirmed during the Paris Agreement, which also asked the developed countries to scale up this amount from 2025. The 2020 deadline has long passed but the $100 billion promise has not been fulfilled. The developed nations have now said that they will arrange this amount by 2023.

What does the Glasgow Agreement say?

Following are the major observations of the Glasgow Summit :

1. A deal aimed at staving off dangerous climate change has been struck at the COP26 summit in Glasgow.

2. Expressed “deep regrets” over the failure of the developed countries to deliver on their $100 billion promise. It has asked them to arrange this money urgently and in every year till 2025.

3. Initiated discussions on setting the new target for climate finance, beyond $100 billion for the post-2025 period.

4. Asked the developed countries to provide transparent information about the money they plan to provide.

5. Loss and Damage: The frequency of climate disasters has been rising rapidly, and many of these cause largescale devastation. The worst affected are the poor and small countries, and the island states. There is no institutional mechanism to compensate these nations for the losses, or provide them help in the form of relief and rehabilitation. The loss and damage provision in the Paris Agreement seeks to address that.


Introduced eight years ago in Warsaw, the provision hasn’t received much attention at the COPs, mainly because it was seen as an effort requiring huge sums of money. However, the affected countries have been demanding some meaningful action on this front. Thanks to a push from many nations, substantive discussions on loss and damage could take place in Glasgow. One of the earlier drafts included a provision for setting up of a facility to coordinate loss and damage activities. However, the final agreement, which has acknowledged the problem and dealt with the subject at substantial length, has only established a “dialogue” to discuss arrangements for funding of such activities. This is being seen as a major let-down.

What are Carbon Markets ?

Glasgow Summit 2021



Carbon Markets: Carbon markets facilitate the trading of emission reductions. Such a market allows countries, or industries, to earn carbon credits for the emission reductions they make in excess of their targets. These carbon credits can be traded to the highest bidder in exchange of money. The buyers of carbon credits can show the emission reductions as their own and use them to meet their reduction targets. Carbon markets are considered a very important and effective instrument to reduce overall emissions.



A carbon market existed under Kyoto Protocol but is no longer there because the Protocol itself expired last year. A new market under Paris Agreement is yet to become functional. Developing countries like India, China or Brazil have large amounts of carbon credits left over because of the lack of demand as many countries abandoned their emission reduction targets. The developing countries wanted their unused carbon credits to be transitioned to the new market, something that the developed nations had been opposing on the grounds that the quality of these credits — the question whether these credits represent actual emission reductions — was a suspect. A deadlock over this had been holding up the finalisation of the rules and procedures of the Paris Agreement.


The Glasgow Pact has offered some reprieve to the developing nations. It has allowed these carbon credits to be used in meeting countries’ first NDC targets. These cannot be used for meeting targets in subsequent NDCs. That means, if a developed country wants to buy these credits to meet its own emission reduction targets, it can do so till 2025. Most countries have presented climate targets for 2025 in their first NDCs.

The resolution of the deadlock over carbon markets represents one of the major successes of COP26.

Five terms that came up at the climate change conference in Glasgow 2021


The main task for COP26 was to finalise the rules and procedures for implementation of the Paris Agreement. Most of these rules had been finalised by 2018, but a few provisions, like the one relating to creation of new carbon markets, had remained unresolved.

After two weeks of negotiations with governments debating over provisions on phasing out coal, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and providing money to the poor world, the annual climate change summit came to an end on Saturday night with the adoption of a weaker-than-expected agreement called the Glasgow Climate Pact.



The Glasgow meeting was the 26th session of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP26. The main task for COP26 was to finalise the rules and procedures for implementation of the Paris Agreement. Most of these rules had been finalised by 2018, but a few provisions, like the one relating to creation of new carbon markets, had remained unresolved. However, due to clear evidence of worsening of the climate crisis in the six years since the Paris Agreement was finalised, host country United Kingdom was keen to ensure that Glasgow, instead of becoming merely a “procedural” COP, was a turning point in enhancing climate actions. The effort was to push for an agreement that could put the world on a 1.5 degree Celsius pathway, instead of the 2 degree Celsius trajectory which is the main objective of the Paris Agreement.

ROLE OF QUAD IN SOUTH CHINA SEA

BY DAKSHITA NAITHANI

The Quadrilateral Dialogue was established in 2007 when four countries—the United States, India, Japan, and Australia—joined forces. However, it did not take off at first due to a variety of factors, and it was resurrected in 2017 after almost a decade due to factors such as growing country convergence, the expanding importance of the Indo-Pacific area, and rising threat sentiments toward China, amongst many others.

The origins of QUAD may be traced back to the Malabar Exercise. Malabar began as a modest Passage Exercise named PASSEX between the Indian and US Navies in 1992, but was halted after India’s nuclear testing in Pokhran in 1998. It was later restarted in 2002. Since its inception in 2002, QUAD has become an annual event. With the addition of Japan in 2015, it has become a trilateral practice.

The Quad’s goal remains intact: to promote the economic and security objectives of those nations with genuine and essential interests, to devise a new approach for keeping the Indo-key Pacific’s maritime lanes free of foreign influence. It has become necessary in view of the increased need for information exchange in the maritime sector. With the growing presence of the Chinese Navy in the Indian Ocean, awareness is a key subject for the Navy. After 2008, China increased its presence in the Region under the pretext of anti-piracy operations, even deploying submarines for the objective. In 2017, China formally established its first overseas facility near Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa.

What are the underlying challenges?

The environment in which QUAD has been resurrected, as well as subsequent engagements like as Malabar Exercise 2020, are regarded as governed by a counter-China narrative. There are several features that may not constitute sites of convergence, despite how they appear.

China’s influence: China has significant economic links with Quad partners, particularly Australia, which is what it may use to compel or sway nations to its side. This might prove to be an issue for India.

Maritime orientation: Quad is a marine rather than a land-based organisation because of its strong concentration on the Indo-Pacific. This raises some important concerns about the basis of collaboration with Asia-Pacific and Eurasian countries.

Differing perspectives. There are conflicting viewpoints on certain situations, such as the Myanmar crisis as seen through the eyes of the United States and India. India has remained silent in the face of Japan’s expressed worry that China is attempting to alter the status quo in the East and South China Seas.

Advantages in Space- When QUAD representatives join forces in space, they have significant benefits and are able to fight China. This includes (a) lowering the extremely high expenses of building a dock in order to promote the development of interplanetary vehicles (IPVs). (b) One member state has benefits that will compliment each other and will lead to a successful Mars exploration and the construction of support facilities that will be necessary for effective asteroid belt mining. (c) All member countries bring a high degree of convergence in space applications, for example, the United States has the advanced technological base required for advanced avionics, which will form the backbone for both the construction of a space dock and the construction of IPVs; India has a highly educated and inexpensive working population, which will lower the cost of space; and Australia has the natural resources required for exploration.

The Quad met in Tokyo on October 6, 2020, for the second time since the organisation revived in November 2017. It was the second such gathering, following the inaugural virtual meeting in June, and the first high-level Quad meeting since the 2019 foreign ministers’ meeting in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting. Furthermore, given mounting worries about Beijing’s hostile conduct and growing suspicions about China’s management of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, the meeting’s timing and circumstances added to its relevance.

China’s ‘incremental encroachment strategy’ in the South China Sea (SCS) is a source of worry not only for the countries currently affected by the loss of influence over the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but also for the rest of the world, as China may be able to exercise a monopoly over SCS Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC). Affected nations lack the necessary power to stand up to China, and so will be forced to accept a one-sided agreement such as the China-driven “Code of Conduct” (COC).

As a result, Chinese adventurism must be restrained by other major maritime countries in the global interest. The fact that China could establish a military facility in the SCS despite the existence of the US Navy shows that worldwide criticism and more effort are required to prevent the SCS from becoming “China’s lake.”

Quad may not have the fangs it needs right now, but there is no other option than to establish a prospective structure like this involving likeminded maritime countries with shared strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific. Various perspectives on the Quad’s role, viability, and prospects have been expressed on several occasions. Because Quad is a security conversation platform rather than a military alliance, aspirations from it must be suitably limited for the time being. 

In the Indo-Pacific, each Quad member sees a distinct threat. While three of the Quad’s warships (Australia, the United States, and Japan) operate under the NATO military alliance structure, India is not a member of any military alliance, while being a reliable ally of two of them. Without India, the trilateral conversation between the three NATO partners has been since 2002. Because India is the only Quad member with an unresolved land boundary with China, it will take a different strategy to dealing with China.

The Quad has emphasised the importance of ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific; nevertheless, their membership in it is a contentious topic owing to Chinese influence. In reaction to China’s claim to the nine-dash line in the SCS, there are divisions within the ASEAN grouping. Some of the ASEAN nations that have been harmed had previously raised a faint voice opposing Chinese aggressiveness, expecting international powers to rein in China’s antics.

Quad’s shared goal of putting its vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific on a “rules-based” legal framework to ensure freedom of passage in the global SLOC requires some reflection and strengthening. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) has been ratified by Australia, India, and Japan, but the United States has yet to do so. This ratification will be required in order to maintain a high moral ground when implementing the agreement.

China is relatively certain that the US and any other country would not employ military action against it, given the current world geopolitical situation. Beijing is also beefing up its naval capabilities. Quad aims to upgrade beyond its Malabar workouts in this situation.

In the Indo-Pacific, Quad members must maintain freedom of navigation exercises and military posture as China continues to do so. Chinese expansion must continue to be condemned by the international community. Quad may not be powerful enough to stop Chinese adventurism in its current form, but it has the potential to become one of the most effective instruments if the afflicted nations and the international community band together to address their mutual concerns.

The navies of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States conducted their largest naval drills this month, sending warships, submarines, and aircraft to the Indian Ocean, signalling the four countries’ seriousness in countering China’s military and political influence in the Indo-Pacific region, according to analysts. Officials in Beijing were silent, but Chinese state media denounced the Malabar naval manoeuvres, calling them a threat to regional stability, according to the Global Times newspaper.

Conclusion

The Quad is developing as one of the major multilateral which is committed to increased security collaboration in the post–COVID-19 international order, given the rising pace and scope of the group’s work. Furthermore, having an active Quad dispels the long-held belief that the Indo-Pacific is mainly inert. With the stakes higher than ever, each of the Quad’s four members must play a larger role in balancing the Indo-threats Pacific’s and power moves. Every step made by the Quad will make it more difficult for Beijing to realise its great-power goals. As a result, China will be unnerved by the Quad’s emergence as a united front championing a free and open Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, if China continues to push the security boundaries and put the Quad members to the test, the organisation will morph into the anti-China squad Beijing fears.

U.S records over 1150 new coronavirus deaths for a second day

United States deaths from the novel coronavirus rose by more than 1150 for a second day on Wednesday 22nd July, including a record one-day rise in fatalities in Alabama, California and Nevada, according to a Worldometer.

The United States has not seen back to back days with over 1150 deaths since May end. Weeks after cases began to surge, more than 20 states are now seeing fatalities also rise.

Positivity rates are at alarming levels in numerous states, hospitalizations are soaring, and more than 1205 Deaths rose by on Wednesday to a total of over 146,183 after climbing 1165 on Tuesday. Total cases are nearing 4.1 million.

One hard hit New Jersey, Florida and Texas county is storing bodies in refrigerated trucks after Covid-19 deaths doubled in the span of a week.