ven before the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 was going to be seminal for the fight against climate change. Not only were two major environmental conventions scheduled for the fall of 2020 (the COP26 to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and COP15 to the Convention on Biological Diversity), but both included very important deadlines. According to Richard Black of the ECIU, 2020 is the first time that both these conventions will have “super-summits.”
For Climate Change, the COP26 agenda included deciding on several important issues and meeting specific deadlines. Parties to the Paris Agreement were expected to finalize the Paris Rulebook (the basic guidelines for implementing the agreement), agree on a new global carbon market (under Art 6 of the Paris Agreement), and take stock of the pledge to raise $100 billion annually by 2020 (to help finance climate change projects in developing countries).
However, the greatest expectation for 2020 was that countries would submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC’s)—commitments to cut carbon emission by 2030 and achieve net-zero emission by 2050. The Paris Agreement, created in 2015, requires its parties to submit “enhanced NDC’s” every five years, with each new NDC being tougher than the last. The purpose of these NDCs is to communicate each country’s level of emissions as well as their plans and policies to lower emissions to meet their national and international goals, thus keeping temperature rise at 2°C or lower. Overall, the “five-year process” of ratcheting up national plans to reduce carbon emission is somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation/negotiation, due to the lack of clarity in the Paris Agreement itself.
Therefore, even though the Paris Agreement required parties to submit NDC’s for that Paris 2015 meeting (where the agreement was finalized), and then new (enhanced) NDC’s by 2020 (and every five years after that), countries with NDC’s that made commitments only up to 2025 (which applies to 13 countries, plus the U.S.) must submit new NDC’s in 2020, with commitment reaching 2030. On the other hand, for countries with NDC’s that made commitments that reach 2030 (the rest of the parties), the expectation is to “communicate or update” their plans and actual progress by 2020. In practice, that will mean that since all parties submitted an NDC in 2015, all they must do now is “reaffirm” their current plans and submit new (enhanced) NDC’s in 2025. Finally, there is uncertainty as to when exactly the NDC’s are due, since the agreement both says that countries have to submit new (enhanced) NDC’s “by 2020” and “at least 9-12 months in advance of the relevant conference of the parties.”
All of this has become extremely relevant due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Due to continuing spread and devastation caused by the pandemic, the UNFCCC Secretariat decided to postpone the COP26 scheduled to take place in Glasgow in November of 2020, by one year (to October 2021). This meeting was supposed to be the most important of all the subsequent annual meetings of the Paris Agreement, because submitting and updating of NDCs is the cornerstone for the implementation of the agreement.
As of July 2020, only eight of the 186 parties which submitted their original NDCs have submitted new ones, and only one of those is part of the top greenhouse gas emitters (Japan). The other top emitters—China, the EU, the U.S., India, and Russia—have not updated their plans and their actions are the most critical in decreasing emissions and preventing a global temperature increase.
Based on a recent EU report, China, the U.S., and the EU are the three largest greenhouse gas emitters, collectively accounting for 52.7% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2018, China accounted for 29.7% of emissions, the US 13.9%, and the EU 9.1%. Furthermore, in 2018, “China, the U.S., India, the EU28, Russia, and Japan—the world’s largest CO2 emitters—together accounted for 51% of the population, 65% of global GDP, 80% of total global fossil fuel consumption and emitted 67.5% of total global fossil CO2.”
In our forthcoming paper on the implementation of NDC’s, we looked at China and the EU as the two largest GHG emitters who are parties to the Paris Agreement. We found that although both the EU and China have put forth commendable NDC plans, neither was ambitious enough to have an impact on the rise in global temperatures.
In particular, the EU member states jointly submitted their original NDC in March of 2015, collectively committing to reducing GHG emissions 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. More recently, the EU announced its intention to achieve “carbon neutrality by 2050,” through its European Climate Law. If adopted, this “European Green Deal” could cost the EU between €4.6-5.0 trillion over the next 30 years, in order to transform such industries like agriculture and transportation to net-zero carbon emitters. Although the EU is not increasing its emissions and continues to be an example for reducing them, achieving the goals of the European Green Deal will be a challenge, as some member-states rely heavily on coal and might require even more funding than proposed to decarbonize their economies.
On the other hand, China committed in their original NDC to peak their carbon emissions by 2030, as well as decrease emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% and increase the share of non-fossil fuel sources of energy consumption to 20%. In the beginning, China implemented appropriate policies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and showed potential to follow through with the creation of a national carbon market and regulations with incentives to decrease emissions in multiple sectors. However, a slowing economy and a continuing trade war with the U.S. led the government to reverse course and reduce subsidies for renewable energy and increase the use of coal again.
In assessing the actions of the other major carbon emitters, we looked into reports by the CAT (Climate Action Tracker) and the PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). Based on these very reputable sources, it is very clear that the largest carbon emitters are not doing enough to mitigate the impact of climate change on global temperatures. Russia, which only recently formally accepted the Paris Agreement despite having signed it in 2016, is the worst performer. The country’s policies are critically insufficient at reducing GHG emissions, according to the CAT. The analysis by the PBL shows Russia to be on track with the goals of the Paris Agreement, but highlights that their emissions are set to increase for the period of 2010 to 2030. India’s original NDC is compatible with the Paris Agreement goal of less than 2°C increase in temperature based on the CAT analysis, but they have reported that emissions will rise until at least 2030 according to the PBL report.
On the other hand, Japan is the only one of the top six emitters to have submitted a new NDC in March of 2020. In it they commit to reducing emissions 26% below their 2013 emissions by 2030 and reducing them 80% by 2050. Although commendable for submitting an NDC during the pandemic, by most experts it is not at all an enhancement on its previous plan nor does it take into consideration the recent COVID-19 developments. However, while disappointing that Japan did not take this opportunity to submit a more ambitious plan in its implementation of the Paris Agreement, a positive development is that they are working hard at reducing emissions in the transportation sector by lowering tank-to-wheel emissions 90% below 2010 levels, by 2050.
Finally, the United States is set to leave the Paris Agreement on November 4th. The Trump administration argued that complying with the goals of the previously submitted U.S. NDC would negatively affect the economy and make the U.S. less competitive globally. However, the U.S. is one of the top three GHG emitters both historically and currently, so their policies on emissions are still important to evaluate. According to the CAT, U.S. policies are critically insufficient for reducing emissions, while the PBL analysis suggests that although U.S. emissions will decrease in the time period of 2010 to 2030, they are already in such extremely high levels that this decrease is insignificant.
Overall, the performance of the top six emitters is problematic. While most of their policies seem to be on track with the goal of reducing carbon emissions in the long term (2050 and beyond), none of them are ambitious enough to have a significant impact on climate change in the short term. Furthermore, the “developing” China, Russia, and India will continue to increase their emissions until 2030—when they will hopefully peak.
Which brings us once again to 2020. The value of information (both current emissions and future plans to reduce emissions) is instrumental in the success of the Paris Agreement. Knowing what countries are doing (especially the large carbon emitters) and how soon countries can peak their emissions allows other adjustments to occur. Therefore, it is imperative that parties submit their NDCs this year.
With COVID-19 widely affecting the global economy and having a tangible impact on global production-trade-consumption, the time is perfect for reevaluation of policies and goals. For example, due to lockdowns around the world, and the resulting decreased use of transportation and other emission producing activities, projections for 2020 range from 4% to 7% reduction in carbon emissions. Therefore, even though COP26 is now postponed for another year, parties to the Paris Agreement should still strive to meet their 2020 deadline and submit new enhanced NDC’s that consider COVID-19.
While the lockdowns are not permanent, a synergy is forming with the significant economic recession caused by COVID-19. Fighting climate change could be a possible avenue through which to alleviate the negative economic effects of the pandemic, and therefore climate change policies should be considered while governments are rebuilding their economies. Paris Agreement NDCs are a perfect place to create and communicate these plans, and whether they are still required to be submitted this year or they are delayed, now is the perfect time to consider this issue.
The EU has made that leap, by introducing a very ambitious “European Green Deal.” In the U.S., the upcoming presidential election is pitting president Donald Trump who is planning to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, with the Democratic challenger Joe Biden, whose clean energy plan is very promising. The Biden climate plan sets a goal of zero net emissions by 2050 by eliminating carbon from the electricity sector by 2035, investing in domestic manufacturing of renewable energy systems, batteries, and electric vehicles (which should help alleviate the high unemployment caused by the COVID-19 lockdown), and spending $2 trillion over four years to accomplish that (with 40% of that money going to disadvantaged communities).
Postponing a summit might be appropriate for public health reasons or political reasons (wait to see if Biden wins the U.S. election and rejoins the Paris Agreement), but postponing the fight against climate change is not. Using the reduction in GHG emissions as an economic strategy to reduce unemployment, redirect global trade, and grow national economies could be a transformative moment in the global fight against climate change.
a global affairs media network
Paris Agreement: Commitments Amid COVID-19 and the Road to 2050
August 20, 2020
E
ven before the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 was going to be seminal for the fight against climate change. Not only were two major environmental conventions scheduled for the fall of 2020 (the COP26 to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and COP15 to the Convention on Biological Diversity), but both included very important deadlines. According to Richard Black of the ECIU, 2020 is the first time that both these conventions will have “super-summits.”
For Climate Change, the COP26 agenda included deciding on several important issues and meeting specific deadlines. Parties to the Paris Agreement were expected to finalize the Paris Rulebook (the basic guidelines for implementing the agreement), agree on a new global carbon market (under Art 6 of the Paris Agreement), and take stock of the pledge to raise $100 billion annually by 2020 (to help finance climate change projects in developing countries).
However, the greatest expectation for 2020 was that countries would submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC’s)—commitments to cut carbon emission by 2030 and achieve net-zero emission by 2050. The Paris Agreement, created in 2015, requires its parties to submit “enhanced NDC’s” every five years, with each new NDC being tougher than the last. The purpose of these NDCs is to communicate each country’s level of emissions as well as their plans and policies to lower emissions to meet their national and international goals, thus keeping temperature rise at 2°C or lower. Overall, the “five-year process” of ratcheting up national plans to reduce carbon emission is somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation/negotiation, due to the lack of clarity in the Paris Agreement itself.
Therefore, even though the Paris Agreement required parties to submit NDC’s for that Paris 2015 meeting (where the agreement was finalized), and then new (enhanced) NDC’s by 2020 (and every five years after that), countries with NDC’s that made commitments only up to 2025 (which applies to 13 countries, plus the U.S.) must submit new NDC’s in 2020, with commitment reaching 2030. On the other hand, for countries with NDC’s that made commitments that reach 2030 (the rest of the parties), the expectation is to “communicate or update” their plans and actual progress by 2020. In practice, that will mean that since all parties submitted an NDC in 2015, all they must do now is “reaffirm” their current plans and submit new (enhanced) NDC’s in 2025. Finally, there is uncertainty as to when exactly the NDC’s are due, since the agreement both says that countries have to submit new (enhanced) NDC’s “by 2020” and “at least 9-12 months in advance of the relevant conference of the parties.”
All of this has become extremely relevant due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Due to continuing spread and devastation caused by the pandemic, the UNFCCC Secretariat decided to postpone the COP26 scheduled to take place in Glasgow in November of 2020, by one year (to October 2021). This meeting was supposed to be the most important of all the subsequent annual meetings of the Paris Agreement, because submitting and updating of NDCs is the cornerstone for the implementation of the agreement.
As of July 2020, only eight of the 186 parties which submitted their original NDCs have submitted new ones, and only one of those is part of the top greenhouse gas emitters (Japan). The other top emitters—China, the EU, the U.S., India, and Russia—have not updated their plans and their actions are the most critical in decreasing emissions and preventing a global temperature increase.
Based on a recent EU report, China, the U.S., and the EU are the three largest greenhouse gas emitters, collectively accounting for 52.7% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2018, China accounted for 29.7% of emissions, the US 13.9%, and the EU 9.1%. Furthermore, in 2018, “China, the U.S., India, the EU28, Russia, and Japan—the world’s largest CO2 emitters—together accounted for 51% of the population, 65% of global GDP, 80% of total global fossil fuel consumption and emitted 67.5% of total global fossil CO2.”
In our forthcoming paper on the implementation of NDC’s, we looked at China and the EU as the two largest GHG emitters who are parties to the Paris Agreement. We found that although both the EU and China have put forth commendable NDC plans, neither was ambitious enough to have an impact on the rise in global temperatures.
In particular, the EU member states jointly submitted their original NDC in March of 2015, collectively committing to reducing GHG emissions 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. More recently, the EU announced its intention to achieve “carbon neutrality by 2050,” through its European Climate Law. If adopted, this “European Green Deal” could cost the EU between €4.6-5.0 trillion over the next 30 years, in order to transform such industries like agriculture and transportation to net-zero carbon emitters. Although the EU is not increasing its emissions and continues to be an example for reducing them, achieving the goals of the European Green Deal will be a challenge, as some member-states rely heavily on coal and might require even more funding than proposed to decarbonize their economies.
On the other hand, China committed in their original NDC to peak their carbon emissions by 2030, as well as decrease emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% and increase the share of non-fossil fuel sources of energy consumption to 20%. In the beginning, China implemented appropriate policies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and showed potential to follow through with the creation of a national carbon market and regulations with incentives to decrease emissions in multiple sectors. However, a slowing economy and a continuing trade war with the U.S. led the government to reverse course and reduce subsidies for renewable energy and increase the use of coal again.
In assessing the actions of the other major carbon emitters, we looked into reports by the CAT (Climate Action Tracker) and the PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). Based on these very reputable sources, it is very clear that the largest carbon emitters are not doing enough to mitigate the impact of climate change on global temperatures. Russia, which only recently formally accepted the Paris Agreement despite having signed it in 2016, is the worst performer. The country’s policies are critically insufficient at reducing GHG emissions, according to the CAT. The analysis by the PBL shows Russia to be on track with the goals of the Paris Agreement, but highlights that their emissions are set to increase for the period of 2010 to 2030. India’s original NDC is compatible with the Paris Agreement goal of less than 2°C increase in temperature based on the CAT analysis, but they have reported that emissions will rise until at least 2030 according to the PBL report.
On the other hand, Japan is the only one of the top six emitters to have submitted a new NDC in March of 2020. In it they commit to reducing emissions 26% below their 2013 emissions by 2030 and reducing them 80% by 2050. Although commendable for submitting an NDC during the pandemic, by most experts it is not at all an enhancement on its previous plan nor does it take into consideration the recent COVID-19 developments. However, while disappointing that Japan did not take this opportunity to submit a more ambitious plan in its implementation of the Paris Agreement, a positive development is that they are working hard at reducing emissions in the transportation sector by lowering tank-to-wheel emissions 90% below 2010 levels, by 2050.
Finally, the United States is set to leave the Paris Agreement on November 4th. The Trump administration argued that complying with the goals of the previously submitted U.S. NDC would negatively affect the economy and make the U.S. less competitive globally. However, the U.S. is one of the top three GHG emitters both historically and currently, so their policies on emissions are still important to evaluate. According to the CAT, U.S. policies are critically insufficient for reducing emissions, while the PBL analysis suggests that although U.S. emissions will decrease in the time period of 2010 to 2030, they are already in such extremely high levels that this decrease is insignificant.
Overall, the performance of the top six emitters is problematic. While most of their policies seem to be on track with the goal of reducing carbon emissions in the long term (2050 and beyond), none of them are ambitious enough to have a significant impact on climate change in the short term. Furthermore, the “developing” China, Russia, and India will continue to increase their emissions until 2030—when they will hopefully peak.
Which brings us once again to 2020. The value of information (both current emissions and future plans to reduce emissions) is instrumental in the success of the Paris Agreement. Knowing what countries are doing (especially the large carbon emitters) and how soon countries can peak their emissions allows other adjustments to occur. Therefore, it is imperative that parties submit their NDCs this year.
With COVID-19 widely affecting the global economy and having a tangible impact on global production-trade-consumption, the time is perfect for reevaluation of policies and goals. For example, due to lockdowns around the world, and the resulting decreased use of transportation and other emission producing activities, projections for 2020 range from 4% to 7% reduction in carbon emissions. Therefore, even though COP26 is now postponed for another year, parties to the Paris Agreement should still strive to meet their 2020 deadline and submit new enhanced NDC’s that consider COVID-19.
While the lockdowns are not permanent, a synergy is forming with the significant economic recession caused by COVID-19. Fighting climate change could be a possible avenue through which to alleviate the negative economic effects of the pandemic, and therefore climate change policies should be considered while governments are rebuilding their economies. Paris Agreement NDCs are a perfect place to create and communicate these plans, and whether they are still required to be submitted this year or they are delayed, now is the perfect time to consider this issue.
The EU has made that leap, by introducing a very ambitious “European Green Deal.” In the U.S., the upcoming presidential election is pitting president Donald Trump who is planning to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, with the Democratic challenger Joe Biden, whose clean energy plan is very promising. The Biden climate plan sets a goal of zero net emissions by 2050 by eliminating carbon from the electricity sector by 2035, investing in domestic manufacturing of renewable energy systems, batteries, and electric vehicles (which should help alleviate the high unemployment caused by the COVID-19 lockdown), and spending $2 trillion over four years to accomplish that (with 40% of that money going to disadvantaged communities).
Postponing a summit might be appropriate for public health reasons or political reasons (wait to see if Biden wins the U.S. election and rejoins the Paris Agreement), but postponing the fight against climate change is not. Using the reduction in GHG emissions as an economic strategy to reduce unemployment, redirect global trade, and grow national economies could be a transformative moment in the global fight against climate change.
