Editorial
The proceedings and outcome of this month’s 2021 UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow have reaffirmed my long-held view that global warming calls for a cool-headed response in order to be effective.
One of the highlights of the conference was the joint declaration by China and the US on enhancing climate action, a prime example of the efficiency of political realism beyond ideological differences. The statement issued in the Scottish city on November 10 states that “on the basis of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as well as taking into account national conditions, enhanced climate action will be taken to effectively address the climate crisis.”
The world’s top two economic powers agreed to establish a working group on enhancing climate action in the 2020s to promote cooperation on climate change between the two countries and the multilateral processes.
Just three days later the COP26 participants reached consensus on key actions to tackle climate change such as on accelerating efforts towards a “phase-down” of unabated coal power, whereby “unabated” refers to emissions from coal-fired power plants that are not syphoned off to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. “Phase-down” was a much more realistic proposition than the West’s proposed “phase out” that would have been unrealistic and, therefore, unacceptable for the developing world.
The conference was a great opportunity for over 20,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries to discuss climate change. It was certainly not, as Sweden’s clamorous climate activist Greta Thunberg regrettably claimed, just “blah, blah, blah.”
I find Greta’s claim rather ironic since much of what she has been saying over the past few years is exactly that: “blah, blah, blah.”
The problem is that she represents an apparently growing segment of the climate movement in Western Europe and North America that has become increasingly quasi-religious, almost eschatological (“the end of the world is nigh”) and that idolises nature in a virtually pagan fashion – present-day’s pathetic fallacy in action. The crux of the issue is that the movement is dogmatically intolerant towards all those who don’t entirely agree with it. It claims that its radical views are based on “the” science, which is another puerile fallacy. Science (without the definite article) is a never-ending process, and climatology is no exception. Among the world’s first climatologists were Greece’s Hippocrates, who some 2,400 years ago came up with the controversial idea of climatic determinism, and China’s Shen Kuo (윅) who a millennium ago already theorised about climate change.
Greta should try to follow in the footsteps of these two famous scientists by studying Climatology at university. It could help her change from a hotheaded activist into a coolheaded academic.
The climate challenge that the world’s 7.9 billion residents are facing must be tackled head-on – but in a realistic and pragmatic way that, most importantly, does not neglect the many other challenges that the world is facing as a community of common destiny, such as poverty alleviation, social justice, education, and gender equality.
Climate hysteria and catastrophism are self-destructive.
President Xi Jinping urged all the COP26 participants by video link on November 1 “to take stronger actions to jointly tackle the climate challenge and protect the planet, the shared home for us all.” In his address, Xi also highlighted China’s “1+N” policy framework for delivering carbon peak and carbon neutrality.
According to Xie Zhenhua, China’s globally respected climate envoy, the “1” refers to the “guiding opinions” that set out the overarching principles of all policies that aim to facilitate China’s peaking and neutrality goal. The “N” consists of a “carbon peaking action plan” – a 10-point plan that sets out Beijing’s expectations on the actions that key sectors are required to take to peak emissions.*
Chief Executive Ho Iat Seng’s 2022 Policy Address last week underlined various environmental protection goals – the development of an e-vehicle (EV) promotion programme and the increase in the number of EV charging stations in public car parks; a ban on the import of non-degradable disposable plastic straws and beverage stirrers; and the construction of temporary facilities to tackle coastal sewage problems. The objectives show that the government is heading in the right direction. Our Environmental Protection Bureau (DSPA) surely has its work cut out.
I agree with local businessman Eric Ho King Fung who told our newspaper last week that “Macau is the best place to adopt EVs [electric vehicles].” It certainly is.
I think that our public transport – public buses, “casino coaches” and taxis – should all go electric as soon as realistically possible. In the medium term the government should only allow new registrations of new energy vehicles (NEVs – plug-in electric vehicles). On the NEV front, the local government can learn a lot from its counterparts in the Chinese mainland, which is the world champion in the manufacturing of environmentally friendly vehicles.
The concept of a “green” Macau will not only benefit all those living here but also makes good business sense as it would make our city more attractive to tourists. That’s why when the government draws up its new gaming concession agreements in the near future, mandatory environmental protection measures should be clearly set out. Anyway, the casino operators would ultimately be among the main beneficiaries of a climate-friendly tourism environment.
– Harald Brüning
*For details visit https://www.e3g.org/news/1-n-china-upcoming-climate-plans-1n-xie-beijing-han/
