Latest news with #ParisPact
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Trump administration's climate denialism is a chance for other countries to step up
For nearly 25 years, the US government's National Climate Assessment (NCA) Reports have been seen as among the most comprehensive analyses of global warming and its impact on human health and economy. In a country where wildfires and storms have increased with alarming frequency in recent years, these reports are widely used by planners to devise mitigating strategies. The NCA's insights also inform global policymaking. But in April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the latest edition of the NCA. And last month, the US government deleted the website that hosted these reports — some of them are still available elsewhere. On Wednesday, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced that the Trump administration would 'update' these studies. The Department of Energy has said that 'Wright was not suggesting he would personally be altering past reports'. But this clarification does not appear convincing in light of the US Energy Secretary's well-known climate scepticism. In the past, Wright, one of the most ardent proponents of the Trump administration credo of 'Drill, Baby, Drill', has criticised the NCA studies for 'not being fair' in their 'broad assessment of climate change'. In his first term, Trump withdrew his country from the Paris Pact and regularly suppressed or downplayed scientific research, which underlined the need for regulation to protect public health and the environment. In his second tenure so far, his administration has taken an even more disquieting approach — weaponising budget cuts to erode the autonomy of scientific agencies and making climate denialism part of their mandate. Hours after withdrawing from the Paris Pact for the second time, Trump asked the US Environmental Agency to reconsider its 2009 statement, which linked greenhouse gases (GHG) with adverse public health effects. Less than a week before Wright's announcement on revising the NCAs, the Department of Energy produced a report which claimed that 'concern over the climate crisis was overblown'. Criticised by several scientists for cherry-picking data, the study emphasised the positive effect of carbon dioxide — it said that the GHG promotes 'global greening' — without acknowledging its role in extreme weather events. Some experts cited in the study have reportedly criticised it for taking their research out of context. The cancellation of NCA data could make the world's largest economy and second-largest GHG emitter less informed about one of the most pressing crises facing the world — and less prepared to confront it. America's retreat from the climate fight also comes at a time when the global resolve is nowhere close to what is required to confront the challenge. It's now up to institutions in other parts of the world to step up.
Indian Express
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Express View on ICJ verdict on climate obligations: A welcome nudge
Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that countries are 'obliged' to 'prevent harm from climate change'. The Court was responding to a UN General Assembly request, triggered by a resolution backed by small island states, for an 'advisory' to 'ensure protection of the environment' from GHG emissions. In a process that stretched over two years, the ICJ consulted experts, including those from the IPCC, as well as representatives of nations and blocs such as the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, to affirm that 'limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C should be considered the primary temperature goal for nations' and that they are obliged to make 'adequate contributions' to achieve this target. The advisory is not binding on governments, but it could breathe new life into the flailing global climate change negotiations. It could also have significant implications for environmental jurisprudence, enabling vulnerable groups and nations to push for stronger climate action. Ten years after the Paris Pact set the roadmap for climate action, numerous inclement weather events all over the world have shone unflattering light on the absence of a collective resolve to decarbonise the world economy. The UN's annual climate meet has taken important decisions to compensate countries for loss and damages due to global warming-induced disasters. Yet, these meetings continue to be held hostage by decades-long differences over who should contribute how much to the mitigation efforts. Last year's UNFCCC meet at Baku, billed as the finance CoP, was a particular disappointment. Leaders of most major economies failed to turn up, and less than two months after the summit, the US President pulled his country out of the Paris Climate Pact for the second time in less than 10 years. The US did not face any legal challenge for pulling out of the treaty, and developed countries have, by and large, got away with not meeting their financial obligations. The ICJ advisory has not spelt out any consequences for defaulters. However, its strong endorsement of compensation to countries that suffer climate damage could trigger a wave of litigation for damages. In recent years, developed nations have reluctantly acknowledged that vulnerable countries require assistance to deal with climate disasters, but they have rejected any suggestion for reparations. The ICJ's opinion could move the needle forward. The top UN court has also affirmed the salience of the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. As rich countries increasingly put pressure on emerging economies, such as India, to assume more global warming mitigation responsibilities, this founding tenet of climate negotiations has come under increasing strain. The ICJ advisory should jolt the historically high emitters and nudge them to fulfil their climate commitments.
