On 30th October 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) published its Global Response to Climate Change Keeps Door Open to 2 Degree C Temperature Limit, which synthesized the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) from some 146 countries, including all the developed and three quarters of the developing countries, including Guyana. The 146 plans covered some 86% of global green gas emissions.
According to the UNFCC report, the INDCs present climate policies, programmes and actions across many sectors, such as decarburizing energy supply mainly through massive shifts to renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements, improved land management, urban planning and transport.
The UNFCCC claims that the INDCs are generally national in scope and include commitment to take immediate action. This has been interpreted as being a recognition by governments of the both the urgency of the matter and the possibility that ambitions will have to be raised before as well as after 2020, when the new climate change agreement takes effect.
The INDCs are said to be cost-effective efforts to achieve a substantial slowdown in emissions growth, thus making it still possible and affordable by 2030 to stay below a 2°C temperature rise.
All industrialised country INDCs and many from developing countries have made unconditional contributions and their conditional contributions represent about 25% of the total expected of emission reductions. Further, all the INDCs cover carbon dioxide (CO2) and many also cover methane, nitrous oxide and other potent greenhouse gases.
It is estimated that, fully implemented, the INDCS could bring global average emissions per capita down by as much as 8% in 2025 and 9% by 2030 and present the possibility of our limiting the forecasted temperature rise to about 2°C by 2100.
As should be expected at this stage of the negotiations, when the secretariat must exude enthusiasm to keep the process on track, the UNFCCC public presentation of the report was very upbeat, if also mildly guarded.
Nick Nuttall, UNFCCC spokesperson, has claimed that collectively the synthesized national climate plans and actions if implemented would ‘dramatically slow global emissions into the atmosphere’, and Ms Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, has maintained that, ‘Fully implemented these plans together begin to make a significant dent in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions: as a floor they provide a foundation upon which ever higher ambition can be built. I am confident that these INDCs are not the final word in what countries are ready to do and achieve over time–the journey to a climate safe-future is underway and the agreement to be inked in Paris can confirm, and catalyze that transition.’
The UNFCCC report claims that INDCs are expected to slow emissions growth by approximately a third between 2011 and 2030 compared to the period 1990–2010, delivering emission reductions of around 4Gt by 2030 compared to pre-INDC scenarios.
However, since information on emissions beyond 2030 is not available, the report does not directly address implications for temperature change by the end of the century. Notwithstanding this, based on various assumptions, some independent analysts have attempted to estimate the impact of the INDCs on temperature and they more or less agree that if they are fully implemented, the INDCs will represent an important advance on the present situation.
For example, even before (at the beginning of October 2015) the UNFCCC published its report, Climate Action Tracker (CAT), which provides independent science-based assessment of emission commitments and country actions, after analyzing INDCs amounting to 71% of global emissions made the claim that, ‘INDCs lower projected warming to 2.7°C: significant progress but still above 2°C’ (http://climateactiontracker.org/).
CAT assessed that if the INDCs are fully implemented they would reduce warming by about 0.6 to 1.1°C by 2100 from the present trajectory of about 3.6°C. It is the first time since it began calculating temperature estimates in 2009 that projected warming has fallen below 3°C.
But the organisation also warned that global ambitions will have to raise if there is to be any chance of success. It claimed that emissions are still set to grow rapidly towards 2030 and there is a major risk that if the INDCs are locked in to 2030 without review, the achievement of the 1.5°C goal called for by the most vulnerable countries may be locked out and achievement of the 2°C goal fundamentally threatened.
Zeroing in on a similar kind of concern, Tim Crosland in his blog (COP21 Support Network) argues that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that as from 2011, we must keep climate CO2 emissions within a budget of 1000 Gt if global warming is to be limited to 2°C by 2100. But with the INDCs emissions will still be growing rapidly and will be 11-22% higher by 2030 compared to 2010 or 37-52% higher than in 1990.
‘Think of that as an empty bath we started running in 2011, which mustn’t be allowed to overflow. Following the trajectory of INDCs, the UNFCCC report concludes that by 2025 the bath will be just over half full; by 2030 it will be three quarters full. Even if global emissions stabilise post 2030 (and there is no evidence that they will) the bath will be overflowing by 2035 (with the tap still running for decades to come).’
He claims that there remains a possibility of our staying within the 2 degree limit only if two conditions are met: INDCs would need to be fully implemented by 2030 and total emissions between 2030 and the decarbonisation date (say 2080) would need to be less than total emissions between 2025 and 2030. He claims that this scenario is unrealistic and that it would be better to make this clear to all the parties.
Also paragraph 59 of the UNFCCC report states, ‘Many Parties communicated that their adaptation components are guided by long-term development aspirations as well as by global climate objectives, including the goal of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which a few Parties used as a reference point for defining their adaptation components.’
Crosland has observed that this means that some countries may be planning their adaptation strategies now on the assumption that warming will be limited to 1.5 or 2 degrees; for example, constructing flood defences on that basis. This he claimed ‘is a reminder of the importance of honest and realistic assessments regarding the long-term goal.’
He concludes, ‘The real message of the report is, predictably, that INDCs don’t deliver anything like enough, soon enough. There has to be a Plan B. Politically that message may be unpalatable; but it won’t go away.’
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
