Climate Action

I have known President Prabowo Subianto for many years, so I have no doubt how he has handled his second 100 days in business.

His unwavering focus, organized leadership, and determination to give results will be obvious to those who have worked with him. This person lives by the tenet that management is more about activity than words.

From his days in the military, where he served on the front ranges during some of Indonesia’s most difficult moments, to his political career, Prabowo has always been a man of his word. As president, he has carried the same sense of mission, honoring the promises he made to the Indian people.

His administration has delivered on its election promises with urgency and intent in these first 100 times. The results speak for themselves. Cultural initiatives are in place, infrastructure projects are being developed, and fiscal discipline is upheld.

The policies in place at this time are now enhancing lives and laying the groundwork for Indonesia’s transition into a modern, dynamic, and admired country.

The free college breakfast system, a crucial strategy commitment that is already being implemented across the country, is one of the most obvious example of his devotion to activity.

This program is about much more than just supplying foods. Children’s academic performance is improved by appropriate nutrition, which gives them a better chance of succeeding in life. By ensuring that children may focus on their studies, this software is an investment in Indonesia’s greatest advantage: its citizens.

Understandably, infrastructure has also been a major concern. Roads, slots and online sites are being developed at a remarkable rate, with the aim of connecting Indonesia’s large island more efficiently.

These projects are crucial for boosting trade and economic growth as well as promoting social cohesion for a nation as big and geographically diverse as Indonesia.

These are not high-profile tasks; rather, they are practical solutions to long-standing issues that aim to reduce barriers and offer businesses the tools they need to succeed.

However, the most crucial aspect of the Prabowo administration’s approach to fiscal responsibility is probably its most distinguishing quality. Indonesia has seen officials who have made promises to the horizon throughout its history without considering the long-term effects and prices of their actions.

President Prabowo’s management is quite different. Every dirhams that is spent creates true value for the people, according to his government, which is characterized by fiscal discipline.

Although the social initiatives that have been launched so far are ambitious, they have been carefully thought out to be both effective and green. This is not a federal seeking reckless democracy or short-term benefits. It is doing so mindfully with the solutions that have been given to it by the people to create a stronger future.

It is this sense of responsibility that drives the government’s fight against corruption. For too long, problem has drained Indonesia’s tools and undermined its possible. This will no longer be tolerated, according to President Prabowo, who has made it clear.

His presidency has taken first steps to improve accountability across all levels of government, increase oversight of public purchasing, and reduce improper practices. While this war will not be won immediately, these initial steps send a strong message: Indonesia’s solutions are for its citizens, not for personal enhancement.

Under President Prabowo’s management, Indonesia is even asserting itself as a major player in world matters. The nation has taken a leadership position on issues like good trade, climate change, the conflict in Ukraine, and global management measures in communities like the G20 and APEC.

Indonesia has become a stabilizing force in a world that is increasingly divided thanks to the president’s sensible diplomacy, which aims to strengthen ties with China while strengthening partnerships with the United States.

During a trip to the United Kingdom in November, President Prabowo walked ahead with US$ 8.5 billion in funding commitments. Another recent developments, from arrival to BRICS, to bilateral agreements in clean energy, equipment and knowledge, not just gain Indonesia but also help to regional and global advancement.

It’s not about using energy for its own sake; it’s about demonstrating that Indonesia has the capacity and vision to tackle common world issues.

These initial 100 times are just the start, but they give sufficient reason for optimism about Indonesia’s potential. The foundations laid but far—in social policy, system, and international diplomacy—are just the first steps in a much longer journey for our country.

But, President Prabowo has made it abundantly clear that the difficult work of changing Indonesia will continue to be done throughout his presidency with the same intensity and control that have characterized these earlier times.

The path ahead will not be without its problems. Corruption, government and international uncertainty are critical. But Indonesia’s story is one of endurance, determination, and creativity. These traits will link Indonesia’s efforts to create a prosperous future.

Sugiono is Indonesia’s minister of foreign affairs.

Continue Reading

People of Carteret County, North Carolina, whose seaside towns and villages are being slashed by the rising Atlantic, will experience yet another monster sea on another day.

However, its electorate elected Donald Trump to the White House, a gentleman who had rejected the science of climate change and had unilaterally withdrawn his nation from the Paris Agreement on climate change before the moon had also set on his first time in business.

It is a paradox that has captivated many people’s minds. The term “denialism” dominated late-night talk shows and became widely known at annual UN summits in 2017, when Trump forked out for the first time to withdraw from the agreement, which spiritually pledges nations to reduce global warming to well below 2°C.

Denialism stifles a compulsive rejection of climate change’s existence. It has led to a community that is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, frequently to the expense of the author. However, climate-conscious officials in a handful of Democrat states have repeated their devotion to medical information.

As an anthropologist, I found myself miserable with the way the famous Trump voting was treated while hardly ever being given the opportunity to speak for themselves. I have participated in climate elections as a scientist, environmentalist and minister, and I felt there was little mirror among the treaty’s activists about their own part in the US exit.

I began a PhD to learn about culture politics ‘ non-participants. It took me to southern North Carolina, where the effects of climate change and a flimsy indifference to the crisis are both present. Like so many other American communities, this place is also known for its coastal communities.

I was interested in learning how people around dealt with climate research and what denialism really looked like. I spent a time talking to people with” Trump Won” colors on their meadows, but I also met experts, government officials, activists and Liberals.

Here is one point I found, and one point I didn’t.

Culture triumphs over “facts”

Although the science of climate change is very powerful, technology alone cannot explain what makes a solution fair or who should have a say in its design. The Paris Agreement, for instance, has a strong social aspect that was hard-won by developing countries, small island states and global activists.

It depicts a planet where wealthy nations like the US are largely to blame for climate change and have to take responsibility for addressing it, and it forbids financial flows to the developing nations to aid in their adaptation. This is a tough narrative for several precarious Americans who don’t feel wealthy or bad.

I saw a similar structure in my own research. Designs that generally guide open relationship with climate action by the federal government and community actions include racism, indigenous information, industrial injustice, and children. These topics won’t always be popular in remote, traditional communities like Carteret state.

According to opinion polls and vote information in the US, climate change is a topic on which voters are divided.

This helps explain why climate change advocates frequently speak to the already-engaged by making reference to other liberal reasons. However, supporters may not always be more influenced by the truth than they are by naysayers. Simply put, it’s simpler to sign up for a reason you can see yourself supporting.

‘ Denialism’ is a poor strategy

What I didn’t get in North Carolina was what I came looking for: environment for.

In the conversations I had in Carteret County, climate change often came up naturally, but the responses were uneven, ranging from curiosity to concern to mistrust and disinterest to fatalism and skepticism. What mention there was hardly fit the stereotype of bitter, conspiracy-fuelled rejection of reality.

In this tight-knit fishing community, people had become wary of outside interventions. Some people were offended by environmental movements because they were given instructions on how to manage a coastline by regulatory scientists or environmental activists.

Others were fatalist about preventing sea level rise; generations spent on the Atlantic’s fierce frontline taught them that you don’t fight storms, you ride them out. Many people were aware of the changes taking place but were unable to devote much time or money, or else found it intolerable to wake up each day thinking about the demise of their local community.

Denialism lacked a justification for this. In contrast, it misrepresented complex social dynamics as a matter of simply accepting or rejecting facts by failing to distinguish between disagreement and lack of agreement.

So why does any of this matter? Because we give ourselves permission to stop enquiring about what we could be doing differently when we identify one group as the sole cause of a problem. After all, climate action’s supporters, from UN officials to individual voters, have a say in what legitimate climate action looks like and who wants to be a part of it.

Reiterating that “science is real,” in the vein of world leaders and American lawn signs, is a rip-off of the US’s withdrawal from Paris, misses the point. Public dissention frequently relates to whose vision of a good world we are working toward rather than whether we should fix it.

This is not to shift blame for Trump’s withdrawal. Nor should it be used to applaud those in politics, business, and the media who have repeatedly omitted the climate debate in defiance of their own policies.

However, limiting public dissention to a matter of misinformation and gullibility implies a lack of humility and ignores concerns that might not turn into opposition if handled politely. We can all do more to reduce the toxicity of climate politics by asking ourselves more questions.

As Trump signed his first executive orders, I pressed send on my thesis’s final corrections. How the international community reacts this time is up for debate, but the last four years have taught me that it may influence whether or not there will be another time.

Karl Dudman is a PhD candidate in anthropology, University of Oxford

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

On his first time back in business as United States president, Donald Trump gave official notice of his nation’s return from the Paris Agreement – a crucial global treaty seeking to rein in climate change.

Before signing the attempt, Trump declared his causes to an area of cheering followers, describing the international agreement as an “unfair, one-sided Paris weather authority rip-off. ”

Of course, this is not the first day Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris deal – he did it in 2017, during his first term in office.

On one hand, Trump’s shift is a huge punch to work to global climate action. The US is the world’s second-biggest emission of greenhouse gas waste, after China. The state is vital to the international effort to curb climate change.

But given Trump’s weather for, it ’s actually better that the US excluded itself from international climate conversations while he is in power. That means, the rest of the world can get on with the task without Trump’s caustic effect.

A quick recap on the Paris Agreement

Signed by 196 countries in 2015, the Paris Agreement is the first comprehensive international agreement to combat climate change.

Its overall purpose is to maintain the increase of global heat to well below 2°C above pre-industrial ranges and undertake efforts to control the raise to 1. 5°C.

Experts say meeting the more optimistic 1. 5°C goal is important because crossing that threshold risks unleashing catastrophic climate change effects, for as more frequent and severe drought and wildfires.

Under the deal, each state may produce national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help achieve the global temperatures goals. These programs are known as “nationally determined contributions”.

What Trump’s removal methods

Under Trump’s next administration, the US was only out of the Paris package for four weeks, due to the time it took for the surrender to take effect. President Joe Biden rejoined the contract in early 2021.

This day, the US withdrawal may be established more immediately – after a year. Finally, the US will add Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only United Nations states no party to the contract.

The US is preserve participating as a celebration to the Paris deal until January 2026. That means it does try to negotiate at the COP30 climate change event in Brazil this time.

COP30 is a big deal. It is when each region is due to current its innovative nationally determined efforts. The US removal means it is unlikely to provide a new input to the conference – if it attends at all.

If the US display up, its presence would probably destabilize negotiations. That’s why removing Trump-backed diplomats from the climate talks going forwards is a good result.

If the US stayed in the camp under Trump, its diplomats may, for example, agitate to diminish any talks struck at the conference. We saw quite techniques from Saudi Arabia at COP29 in Baku. The fuel state constantly disrupted the talks and in one example, sought to change critical text in the agreement without full consultation.

With the US out of the way, the other parties to the Paris Agreement have a better chance of progressing climate negotiations.

At this stage, it does n’t appear other countries are preparing to follow Trump out the door. This is despite controversy at the COP29 talks when Argentinian president Javier Milei ordered his negotiators to withdraw only a few days in. Milei had previously described the climate emergency as a “socialist lie. ”

At this stage, Trump has not withdrawn from the Paris Agreement’s parent convention, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So after it withdraws from the Paris deal, the US can still attend COP meetings, but only as an observer.

Onwards and upwards

Of course, there are downsides to the US withdrawal from the Paris deal.

Leaving the Paris Agreement means the US is no longer required to provide annual updates on its greenhouse gas emissions. This lack of transparency makes it harder to determine how the world is tracking on emissions reduction overall.

Under the Biden administration, the US contributed funding to help developing nations adopt clean energy and cope with climate change ( albeit delivering less than it promised ). Trump is expected to slash this funding. That will leave vulnerable nation-states in an even more precarious position.

While the US was technically only out of the Paris deal for a short period last time, the process was destabilizing. It weakened what was an unprecedented show of international solidarity and sent a damaging message about the importance of climate action.

Trump’s latest withdrawal is a similar blow to morale. It’s particularly galling for Americans fighting for climate action, and those struggling with its devastating effects – most recently, the unthinkable fires in Los Angeles.

But Trump’s withdrawal can easily be reversed by a new US president. And we can expect other parties to Paris, such as China and the European Union, to continue to play a leadership role, and others to fill the vacuum.

What’s more, as others have noted, Trump cannot derail global climate action. Investment in clean energy is now greater than in fossil fuels. When Trump last pulled out of Paris, many US state and local governments pressed ahead with climate policy; we can expect the same this time around.

And the vast majority of the rest of the world is still pursuing emissions reduction efforts.

So overall, the US exit from Paris is probably the best of a bunch of bad options. It mutes Trump’s capacity to destabilize international climate action, allowing others to step into the breach.

Rebekkah Markey-Towler is PhD Candidate, Melbourne Law School, and research fellow, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading