The Haves and the Have Nots
Where’s the (decimal) point?
MARK HODGSON
The Guardian today published an “exclusive” article with the heading “‘Something is working’: UN climate chief optimistic about green transition: Simon Stiell believes economic benefits will compel countries to speed up climate action”. Despite reciting a litany of failure, in terms of the lack of submissions required by the Paris Climate Agreement, ahead of the upcoming COP-fest in Brazil, the article attempts to put a positive spin on things. It’s risible, really, since it’s self-evident that the whole project is falling apart.
Nevertheless, I thought it might be worth digging a little deeper, to see exactly what limited progress has been made, and where the substantial problems remain. What, then, are the obligations of the signatories to the Paris Agreement? A useful summary is helpfully provided here by the United Nations:
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris Agreement and the achievement of its long-term goals. NDCs embody efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change….The Paris Agreement requests each country to outline and communicate their post-2020 climate actions, known as their NDCs.
Together, these climate actions determine whether the world achieves the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement and to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as soon as possible and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs in the second half of this century. It is understood that the peaking of emissions will take longer for developing country Parties, and that emission reductions are undertaken on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, which are critical development priorities for many developing countries….NDCs are submitted every five years to the UNFCCC secretariat. In order to enhance the ambition over time the Paris Agreement provide that successive NDCs will represent a progression compared to the previous NDC and reflect its highest possible ambition.
Parties are requested to submit the next round of NDCs (new NDCs or updated NDCs) by 2020 and every five years thereafter (e.g. by 2020, 2025, 2030), regardless of their respective implementation time frames.
Moreover, Parties may at any time adjust their existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition (Article 4, paragraph 11).
The simple point is that this is not a static process. The parties to the agreement are expected regularly to update their NDCs, with a view to ensuring progress towards the global target. The problem is, this simply isn’t happening, at least not as it is supposed to do. Naturally, the UK has submitted its updated NDC, since (as Mr Miliband loves to remind us) we have to lead the world, set an example, and encourage others to shape up. However, not a lot of other countries (certainly not those with significant emissions, who we need to shape up if global targets are to be met) seem much inclined to bother.
Back in February of this year, the Guardian was already reporting that only a dozen or so countries had got around to submitting their updated NDCs, including the United Arab Emirates (hosts of COP28), Brazil (host of the upcoming COP30), the UK (naturally) and the USA. The latter might have been a big deal, given that the USA is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases every year, but, as the Guardian sadly acknowledged, following the election of President Trump, “that is now largely symbolic.” The situation was rather depressing for the climate-concerned:
Even if China, India, the EU and some other G20 states come forward with relatively strong NDCs, the chances that they will add up globally to the drastic emissions cuts needed to keep the 1.5C target safe are small. [Actually, they are non-existent]. Rachel Kyte, the UK’s climate envoy, said: “When you add up all the NDCs, my expectation is they may not get us back on track.
Which rather makes you wonder why the UK bothers, not least since, here we are, seven months later, and despite the extended deadline, the parties listed above – the crucial parties – still haven’t submitted their revised NDCs. A little over a week ago, Climate Change News reported that:
Only a sixth of countries have presented their updated NDCs so far, including an emissions-cutting target for 2035, with those from many major economies including the European Union (EU), China and India still missing.
The reality, however, is starker than the fact that only a sixth of countries have presented their updated NDCs. The hugely significant point (especially if we ignore the updated NDC from the USA, which under President Trump is likely to be ignored), is that the nations who have responded to date, represent a small percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis. Taking the relevant percentages from European Commission’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), we can observe how insignificant the progress is. It’s difficult to be sure which represent the revised NDCs now due, but so far as one can tell from the UN Registry they begin with Madagascar’s submission on 17th January 2024. And so we obtain the following list (country name, followed by its percentage share of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2024, according to EDGAR’s analysis):
Madagascar (0.07)
Panama (0.04)
United Arab Emirates (0.5)
Brazil (2.44)
Switzerland & Liechtenstein (0.08)
USA (11.11)
Botswana (0.02)
Uruguay (0.08)
UK (0.73)
New Zealand (0.15)
Lesotho (0.01)
Andorra (so insignificant, it doesn’t feature in EDGAR, other than lumped together with Spain)
Ecuador (0.14)
Saint Lucia (0)
Singapore (0.14)
Marshall Islands (So insignificant, they don’t feature in EDGAR)
Zimbabwe (0.06)
Canada (1.44)
Japan (2.00)
Serbia & Montenegro (0.13)
Cuba (0.07)
Maldives (0)
Zambia (0.07)
Kenya (0.19)
Moldova (0.02)
Nepal (0.08)
Belize (0)
Norway (0.1)
Monaco (lumped in with France in EDGAR, but insignificant)
Niue (doesn’t feature in EDGAR, presumably due to insignificance)
Cambodia (0.09)
Soloman Islands (0)
Barbados (0)
Somalia (0.06)
Iceland (0.01)
Angola (0.13)
Holy See (lumped in with Italy in EDGAR, but insignificant)
Australia (1.11)
Nicaragua (0.04)
It can readily be seen that, with the exception of the USA (which can now be disregarded) and Brazil, Japan, Australia and Canada, these countries represent very small levels of emissions indeed. Nothing they say or do can make much difference to anything. Instead, the vast majority of those who have stirred themselves into action are those who are looking for something from the process (most obviously money – lots of it), and those who haven’t bothered are the only ones who might conceivably make some of the difference that the United Nations is hoping to see.
For the sake of completeness, the countries which have made submissions (including the USA) represent 21.11% of global emissions. Strip out the USA, as I think is only reasonable, given that the Trump administration isn’t remotely signed up to the NDC submitted by the Biden administration, and the figure drops to exactly 10%.
Of course, some NDCs will be submitted between now and COP30, and some may follow after it’s all over. Nevertheless, there is patently no international enthusiasm for taking meaningful action. Don’t forget, we are looking at NDCs submitted by countries responsible for just 10% of global emissions, but for the most part we (at least, I) don’t know what they say for the most part. If they are as ineffectual as the first ones submitted in the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement, then they won’t amount to a row of beans.
If readers can point me to the section of the UN website where updated NDCs can be read, I should be very grateful, as the only ones whose contents I have been able to read to date are the original ones. The UK’s can be accessed on the UK government website here for those who might be interested (but be warned – it runs to 74 pages). The hubris is monumental.
Page 6 – “…the UK is re-establishing itself as a climate leader on the global stage.”
“The UK has demonstrated it is back in the business of climate leadership – resetting at home and reconnecting abroad.”
Page 7 – “We can only deliver energy security and good jobs for today’s generations if we deliver clean energy. And we can only deliver climate security for future generations if we show global leadership.”
Page 20 – “On 4th October 2024, the government reached commercial agreement with the private sector and announced up to £21.7bn of available funding over 25 years to launch the UK’s new carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen industries to make the UK an early leader in these two growing global sectors.”
Page 27 – “Additionally, the Scottish Government is transforming the way we support farming and food production in Scotland to deliver our Vision for Agriculture and become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.”
Page 36 – “The global ‘Race to Zero’ campaign exemplifies this leadership, with over half of its business and financial signatories, as of mid-2024, being UK-based.”
Page 54 – “Our more ambitious strategy will maintain our role as a global leader…”
Perhaps its authors should reflect a little more deeply on the reality of the situation, not least the point they themselves make on page 6:
Halfway through this critical decade for tackling climate change, the world is off-track to limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
The leaders of the countries that might be able to do something about that don’t seem to care. That being the case, when are our leaders going to stop pontificating, strutting about on the world stage, claiming global leadership (a claim that is laughable), and concentrate on the UK’s problems, as the leaders of other countries concentrate on theirs?
This article (The Haves and the Have Nots) was created and published by Climate Scepticism and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Mark Hodgson
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply