The Tribune

TWO years ago at the UN’s Conference of the Parties on climate change, COP26 in Glasgow, Prime Minister Philip Davis delivered a memorably impressive speech. He spoke eloquently and in dramatic language about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change and global warming on low-lying Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like his own, in particular as a result of rising ocean levels.

Some of his words – “We cannot out-run your carbon emissions; we cannot out-run the hurricanes which are becoming more powerful; and we cannot out-run the rising sea levels as our islands disappear beneath the seas” – became the Glasgow gathering’s quote-of-the-day used by Bloomberg. His address attracted wide international interest and praise.

There followed COP27 at Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt last year and now COP28 in Dubai has just ended, where, by all accounts, the Prime Minister distinguished himself once again on behalf of the Bahamian people.

These annual international meetings are where the world comes together to agree on ways to address the climate crisis, such as limiting the globe’s temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, helping vulnerable countries adapt to the effects of climate change, and achieving net zero emissions by 2050 “in keeping with the science”.

The reaction to the outcome of COP28 has been mixed. It has been hailed as an “historic package to accelerate climatic action” and at the conclusion the summit president received a standing ovation. It seems that one of the reasons for this was that the nearly 200 countries attending agreed to a deal calling on all nations to “transition in a just and orderly way” away from fossil fuels - which have been described as the “giant” behind the climate crisis - to avert the worst effects of climate change; and this is the first time that any reference to moving away from fossil fuels has been included in the final version of a UN climate change agreement.

Nonetheless, critics say that the final text was unsatisfactory in a number of other respects; for example, the agreement did not include an explicit commitment to phase out – or even phase down – fossil fuels. Moreover, it is said that some SIDS are not happy because the agreement fell short in relation to what was needed on emissions reductions so the 39-strong Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) announced that “the process has failed us”.

Furthermore, it appears that little real progress was made in relation to climate adaptation and there was no exclusive focus on climate finance; though, according to all reports, finance was a key talking point in most of the negotiations. Developing countries have made it clear consistently that they will need large amounts of money to transition away from fossil fuels and develop renewables, and they will need access to the Loss and Damage Fund, approved most recently by COP28, to help the most vulnerable repair their infrastructure and to build their capacity.

Amidst all this, what will surely interest Bahamians most will be the announcement by the Prime Minister of the launch of a major initiative – the Bahamas Sustainable Investment Programme (BSIP)-- and its potential to save and transform the lives of the Bahamian people. In his formal remarks Mr Davis explained, as he has done before, that most of The Bahamas lies within a few feet of sea level, adding “we are right in the strike zone of Hurricane Alley and just within the last four years we have been hit by four major storms”. He said that The Bahamas was working regularly with SIDS to persuade other countries to reduce carbon emissions and was constantly looking for ways to strengthen its capacity to respond to hurricanes, including launching a National Youth Guard to help the country’s response to disasters. It was working to achieve sustainable development. Examples were efforts to make the country’s infrastructure more climate resilient, developing renewable energy, conserving coastal zones, reducing biodiversity loss, regenerating agriculture and participating in carbon credit programmes. But what was needed was financing to support all these and recovery and adaptation efforts more generally.

The Prime Minister said he was both excited and optimistic about the BSIP as he wanted to establish a new benchmark in climate finance. He intended to work with regional and global capital market leaders to underwrite and put in place an “innovative financing facility” and he offered maximum collaboration on the Bahamian side. He understood the critical need for “climate smart” investment, especially in SIDS, as the world faced one of the most “significant challenges of our time” – and he believed the BSIP was a testament to his country’s resolve to take positive action to help itself as it reached a turning point in its approach to the issue.

I do not know how much publicity has already been given to all this, though I may have missed some earlier press coverage. According to reports I have seen, in order to prepare for COP28 there was a meeting in Grenada in September of Caribbean countries to discuss a united front in dealing with climate change issues and for the region to speak jointly since its voice as a bloc would carry more weight. What I have found interesting is that, under the Prime Minister’s direction, The Bahamas seems to have taken the lead in developing Caribbean unity and that necessary joint voice in support of action, accountability and climate justice.

Presumably, the government will wish to raise public awareness of what action it is taking. In talking about BSIP, the Prime Minister has said: “With this programme, we are spearheading our own climate financing solution and we invite the region, and the world, to partner with us”. Apart from COP28, the issue of climate change and fossil fuels is anyway separately in the news right now. I note from an article in The Tribune last week that the government has been asked to endorse the initiative for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, but I have seen no further reporting about this.

POLITICAL HARD BARGAINING IN WASHINGTON

Writing recently about the new breed of political practitioner in Britain now that politics has become akin to a career, I suggested that among modern-day politicians there was a lack of genuine ideologues with deeply held beliefs and adherence to certain values. Rather, they seemed more interested in attaining and hanging on to power at whatever cost.

The same thoughts crossed my mind last week when reading about the efforts of Republicans in Washington to make approval of further aid to Ukraine conditional on tightening up immigration controls on the US/Mexican border.

A study of the UK press reveals disbelief among many observers - which I must admit to sharing - that the two issues could be linked in this way. But it is the Americans’ own system and reflects the rough and tumble of their domestic politics. So it is clear that this sort of hard bargaining is possible and might even work.

The circumstances of the war in Ukraine are so well known to all concerned that there is no need to repeat the importance of Western military aid and support - particularly the US commitment to help Ukraine “for as long as it takes” - to defeat the Russians and force them to withdraw. The reasons for the aid have also been explained ad nauseam; not least, of course, to show Putin, who, if he succeeds ultimately in Ukraine, may be tempted to invade other countries in that part of the world. The message to him has to be, in loud and clear terms, that if he does that he will be stopped by force – and that, of course, would require heavy US involvement.

Thus, there can be no doubt in the minds of lawmakers in Washington that the continuing war in Ukraine is an important matter of US national security and that a Putin victory would be a serious setback for the West with unpredictable repercussions. US support for Ukraine has also become a moral issue and one of Western integrity in honouring commitments already made since the Russian invasion in February, 2022.

All that said, some Republicans maintain that the current crisis at their southern border, with thousands crossing over it almost uncontrolled, is likewise an important matter of national security. But this is surely of less significance than Ukraine, if only for the fact that the Americans themselves can resolve it as long as political differences allow some sort of compromise.

Republicans have said repeatedly that they will only vote for a new aid package for Ukraine and Israel if it is paired with new controls for the US/Mexico border. The polls show that the crisis at this border is a matter of huge concern to American voters and needs to be fixed while many have no interest in Ukraine and could not care less about it when problems at home need to be addressed and solved first.

Despite this, the general view from across the pond is that, while both issues affect US national security, they should not be linked in this way for they have no direct connection. Further aid to Ukraine resulting in Russia’s eventual defeat could determine the future of world peace and should anyway be partly a matter of conscience for the Republican lawmakers concerned.

Observers see this issue as a cynical political ploy by Republicans and surely unrealistic when they know that the crisis at the border ought to be resolved through direct negotiation in their own country.

At the time of writing at the weekend, the US Senate was due to vote on a supplemental aid package for Ukraine and Israel yesterday. But, for many watching these developments from afar, the whole episode has not been a good advertisement for the workings of democracy.

Big Ben back in business

Recently, I spotted – and then could not find again - a reference in the UK press to Britain’s iconic clock in central London, known universally as Big Ben. Its tower stands almost 320 feet tall and it has become a famous symbol of Britain; and I assumed the reference must have been to the anniversary of its construction or some similar event.

In fact, what I eventually found was a report that, after only occasional appearances recently, Westminster’s famous bells – known as the Westminster chimes -- which are one of the most recognizable sounds in Britain, are now being heard again live on the BBC which has started broadcasting the chimes as a part of its regular schedules. Big Ben will also ring in the New Year to mark the arrival of 2024.

The huge clock is housed in the famous Elizabeth Tower, which was re-named to honour The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The tower is alongside the Houses of Parliament, and the clock at the top has become an easily identifiable landmark. Miraculously, it escaped serious damage when German bombs hit the Palace of Westminster during a nighttime raid in May, 1941.

The clock was installed in 1859 with the aim of creating the most accurate timepiece in the world and it has recently completed a five-year repair and conservation project which was said to be the biggest such undertaking in its history. Big Ben was silent throughout the period of its refurbishment but pealed again for the first time since its restoration work on November 11, 2022, for Remembrance Sunday.

It is said that Londoners are overjoyed to have Big Ben fully back to normal – and, thanks to the BBC, those outside London as well will be able to hear again the famous chimes of an old familiar friend.