Vulnerable countries should use the current period to more rapidly bake-in implications of the climate crisis in economy-wide development metrics and plans. They must do so in ways that reflect national priorities and which enable country development strategies even as they sustain and intensify demands for developed countries to deliver climate finance obligations based on the speed and scale of vulnerable country needs rather than random rich country yardsticks.
With a gleaming skyline, robust public transportation system, and high per capita income, Singapore is often held up as a paragon of development that other Southeast Asian countries seek to emulate. However, a closer look at Singapore’s climate commitments and non-state actors suggests that while Singapore presents a pathway for climate mitigation, the island nation still has scope to be more ambitious and those looking to follow in its path should take note.
2014 figures indicate that Malaysia is ranked third in the region in terms of CO2 emissions per capita (8.00 metric tons) after Brunei Darussalam and Singapore. This is almost double the world average and is a clear indication that Malaysia’s commitment to reduce emissions is essential for the sustainable future of the region.
With the increasing threats of climate change, corporate investment and industrial expansion in the area, women are faced with new challenges in the form of migration and trafficking. The impacts of climate change are charted as follows: decreasing crop yields; threats to food security; increased water stress and drought; increasing fluvial flooding and rainfall; frequent fluvial flooding; an increasing number of tropical cyclones (in certain areas); and rise of sea level affecting livelihood in coastal regions.
The 2019 Indonesian presidential candidates, Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto, squared off during a televised debate on February 17. While both have mentioned climate change in their vision and mission documents, none of them cared enough to elaborate on that during the debate.
The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 opts for a rigorous interpretation of the 1.5 limit on global warming. It has good reasons to do so: "Overshooting" that target risks irreversible impacts and damage for societies and ecosystems, and increases reliance on unproven, high-risk geoengineering technologies.
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial is feasible, and it is our best hope of achieving environmental and social justice, of containing the impacts of a global crisis that was born out of historical injustice and highly unequal responsibility.
The list of the world’s largest 500 companies by turnover contains a huge number of firms engaged in agriculture and food. And the trend continues towards a further concentration of power. Agrifood corporations are driving industrialization along the entire global value chain, from farm to plate. Their purchasing and sales policies promote a form of agriculture that revolves around productivity. The fight for market share is achieved at the expense of the weakest links in the chain: farmers, and workers.
The Paris Agreement has set an ambitious goal to prevent global warming from spiraling out of control. But it has also set the stage for what will form the subject of numerous heated debates in the coming years.
The food that we eat plays a big role in the search for solutions to climate change. Agriculture is one of the major contributors of greenhouse gases. But the way we farm our land can also be a big part of the solution.