Editor’s note: The 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference opened on Monday in Turkiye with a focus on translating global climate commitments into concrete action. People’s Daily Overseas Edition spoke to Chen Ying, director of the Research Centre for Sustainable Development at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; and Sun Yongping, deputy director of the Institute of State Governance at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, on the issues facing climate governance. Below are excerpts of the interviews. The views don’t necessarily represent those of China Daily.
The climate crisis is intensifying, with recent data indicating that the temperature targets set in the Paris Agreement are becoming difficult to achieve. The success of the global energy transition hinges on whether developing countries can access the financing they need to meet their climate targets.
The challenges in climate finance stem from deeper structural problems. The global climate governance framework, primarily based on negotiations and target-setting, lacks effective enforcement mechanisms and has limited capacity to ensure that commitments are translated into action.
Also, a turbulent international landscape, mounting geopolitical tensions, economic slowdowns, energy crises, debt burdens in developing countries and intensifying competition among major powers have created multiple obstacles to implementation.
Additionally, the effects of carbon lock-in are becoming increasingly pronounced. Physical inertia sets a floor for emissions, institutional inertia undermines policy ambition and vested interests distort the pathways to transition.
Simultaneously, diminishing political will and a leadership vacuum directly undermine the trust and predictability of multilateral mechanisms. The US has undermined the global climate governance system by formally withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, setting a damaging example for others. At the same time, trade frictions, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and instability in the Middle East have diverted countries’ political attention and resources.
The European Union’s green transition has been hampered by energy and diplomatic challenges, slowing the implementation of its Green Deal.
On the other hand, the EU’s climate leadership has weakened considerably. In the early stages of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the EU aimed to accelerate its energy transition and reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas.
However, progress has proved difficult. High energy prices have intensified internal divisions and put pressure on the competitiveness of European industries. As a result, the focus of policies has increasingly shifted toward protecting domestic industries.
Despite these challenges, without the Paris Agreement the global climate situation would have been even more serious.
However, current efforts are insufficient to achieve its long-term goal of keeping global warming well below 2 C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels. All parties must cherish this hard-won multilateral achievement and continue to honor their commitments.
By upholding multilateralism through the vision of a community with a shared future for humanity and the Global Governance Initiative, China provides conceptual certainty for global climate governance.
Improving its institutions and mechanisms to pursue its goals of peaking carbon emissions before 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality before 2060 is also providing certainty for the world’s green and low-carbon development.
Developing green productive forces and reshaping the global cost curve of emissions reduction create technological certainty. By promoting common development and breaking the zero-sum logic of climate governance, China offers greater certainty for international cooperation.
