We’ ve discussed the difficulties of lowering global emissions quickly enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s not-to-exceed-2°C target in a number of previous posts but have never presented any details on what individual countries propose to do. Here I provide brief synopses of the “Intended Nationally Developed Contributions” (INDCs) submitted to the Paris Conference by the world’s eleven top CO2 emitters. Hopefully readers will find them instructive. (Why eleven and not ten? Partly because Australia comes eleventh, and our Oz correspondents will be encouraged to learn that Australia’s emissions are lower than those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and partly because Australia comes tenth when we exclude the USA, which hasn’t ratified the Paris Agreement.)
The data presented here are from the individual country INDC submissions supplemented by summaries provided by Carbon Brief and other sources listed in the text.
A few observations on the accuracy of global CO2 emissions estimates before proceeding. There are two types of CO2 emissions – those we can measure reasonably accurately and those we can’t. Where one starts and the other stops is summarized in Figure 1 (data from Figure 1.3 of the IPCC AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change report):
Figure 1: IPCC CO2 equivalent estimates by source. The black line shows BP’s fossil fuel CO2 estimates
The CO2 emissions we can measure reasonably accurately are those from fossil fuel combustion (orange), which can be estimated from the carbon content of the fuel consumed. The BP and IPCC estimates generally match to within a few percent (BP is slightly lower probably because the IPCC has included some minor source that BP hasn’t). But these emissions only accounted for 65% of the IPCC’s total CO2 equivalent emissions in 2010.
Of the remaining 35% about a third comes from FOLU (Forest and Other Land Use changes). Given our imperfect knowledge of how the carbon cycle works it’s difficult to say how much CO2 is actually generated by FOLU. The estimation process is further complicated by bizarre criteria, such as CO2 from a tree burned in place being counted as man-made emissions while CO2 from a tree converted into wood pellets and burned in a power plant is not.
The remaining two-thirds of the 35% comes from other greenhouse gases (methane, Nox and fluorocarbons) converted into CO2 equivalents on the basis of their “global warming potential”. Here again someone has to estimate how much methane etc. was emitted, another error-prone process, and then convert it into a CO2 equivalent, which introduces yet more uncertainty. “User related choices such as (residence time) can greatly affect the numerical values obtained for carbon dioxide equivalents” as Wikipedia puts it.
Why does the IPCC include these questionable estimates?
The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol cover a wider array of CO2 sources and of warming substances …. This large list was included, in part, to create opportunities for firms and governments to optimize their mitigation efforts flexibly across different substances.
For “governments” read “developing countries”. It’s accepted that the developing countries are going to increase their CO2 emissions come what may, and “optimizing” CO2 emissions from forest clearing and methane emissions from livestock and rice paddies etc. should go at least some way to make the increases look smaller than they really are.
Which brings us to the to question of how the world’s top ten emitters propose to cut their emissions according to their Paris Conference INDCs. Taking them in order of appearance on the Carbon Brief list, here is a summary of specifics. (Note again that the USA, which emitted 12.10% of the world’s CO2 in 2012 is excluded. Also note that the INDCs were submitted before the Paris Conference began):
1. China: 23.75% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions (data from a Xinhua English translation. China’s INDC was submitted in Chinese.)
China has nationally determined its actions by 2030 as follows:
– To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030
– To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level;
– To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20%; and
– To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the 2005 level.
How will China achieve these goals? Among other things by implementing proactive national and regional strategies, building low-carbon energy systems, controlling emissions from the building and transportation sectors, increasing carbon sinks and “promoting the low-carbon way of life”.
But what were China’s 2005 emissions? (2005 is commonly chosen as the base year probably because this is when Kyoto came into effect). China doesn’t say. And by when should the non-FF share of primary energy increase to around 20% and the “forest stock” to 4.5 billion cubic meters? It doesn’t say that either. And what does “around” mean? None of these “actions” are verifiable, and searches for words such as “pledge”, “commit” and “binding” in the main body of the text yield zero hits. China adds a page at the end stating that “China is committed to the full, effective and sustained implementation of the (UNFCCC) Convention” and that “The 2015 agreement shall be a legally binding agreement implementing the Convention.” But since China’s INDC commits and binds itself to nothing these noble sentiments don’t apply.
Bottom line: China’s emissions will continue to increase for at least the next ten years.
2. European Union: 9.87% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
The EU and its Member States are committed to a binding target of an at least 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 (document emphasis)
The EU’s submission is basically a rehash of the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework the EU adopted in 2014. The target is also nowhere near as ambitious as it sounds. EU emissions in 2015 were already 22% below the 1990 base year, so the 40% reduction actually represents a cut of only about 18% below 2015 levels, as shown in Figure 2 (data from Eurostat):
Figure 2: EU greenhouse gas emissions trend, EU-28, 1990 – 2015 (Index 1990=100). The fall in emissions in the early 1990s was contributed by former East Bloc countries whose economies collapsed after the breakup of the Soviet Union and who later joined the EU. Another question is was what the EU’s emissions would now be if the 2008-9 global recession had never happened.
Bottom line: Even if the EU meets its target global emissions will be cut by less than 2% below current levels.
3. India: 7.73% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
On page 29 of India’s 38-page INDC we finally come across India’s proposals:
3. To reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level.
4. To achieve about 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030 with the help of transfer of technology and low cost international finance including from Green Climate Fund (GCF).
5. To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
No pledges, commitments or binding targets. And in case there’s any doubt about it:
It is clarified that India’s INDC do(es) not bind it to any sector specific mitigation obligation or action
How much impact India’s proposals might have on its emissions is not specified, but India leaves us in no doubt as to how much they are going to cost:
…a preliminary estimate suggests that at least USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) will be required for meeting India’s climate change actions between now and 2030.
And where is the money to come from?
India’s climate actions have so far been largely financed from domestic resources. A substantial scaling up of the climate action plans would require greater resources. A detailed and full scale assessment of international climate finance needs will be finalized at a later stage.
Bottom line: Send money.
4. Brazil: 5.70% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
Brazil intends to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 37% below 2005 levels in 2025.
No binding commitment, merely an intention to commit. But it sounds good, or at least it does until we come across this:
Brazil … reduced its emissions by 41% in 2012 in relation to 2005 levels.
Which according to Figure 3 it did:
Figure 3: Brazil’s CO2 equivalent emissions by source. The Y scale is in gigatons CO2 equivalent. Data from Climate Change News
And when it submitted its INDC in 2015 Brazil’s emissions were almost exactly 37% below 2005 levels, so Brazil actually committed itself to no reduction at all. Moreover, all emissions reductions to date have been achieved in the land use change (in Brazil’s case the “slash and burn”) sector, so all it will take to maintain the status quo is a little more optimization of land use change emissions to offset Brazil’s rapidly growing energy emissions. (Because of the uncertainties involved in estimating land use change emissions, which make up well over half of Brazil’s total emissions, there are also questions as to what Brazil’s emissions really are. According to Climate Brief Brazil contributes 5.7% of the world’s total CO2 equivalent emissions but according to Climate Home News only 3.4%.
Bottom line: What would you like Brazil’s future emissions to be?
5: Russia: 5.35% of world total (from an “unofficial translation”)
Russia’s INDC says that the country has a legally-binding target for “GHG emissions”, which I believe dates from the Kyoto Protocol:
The Russian Federation currently has in force legally-binding instruments aimed at providing for limitation of the GHG emissions to at most 75% of 1990 levels by the year 2020
But that limiting “anthropogenic emissions” depends on whether Russia’s forests cooperate:
Limiting anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year 2030 might be a long-term indicator, subject to the maximum possible account of absorbing capacity of forests.
And Russia hasn’t made a final decision on what, it anything, to commit to:
… the final decision of the Russian Federation on the INDC in the framework of the new climate agreement will be taken pursuant to the outcome of the negotiating process underway throughout the year of 2015 and the INDCs announced by major emitters of greenhouse gases.
I’m not sure exactly what the difference is between “GHG emissions” and “anthropogenic emissions”, but at the time of Paris Russia’s fossil fuel emissions were already 33% below 1990 levels, so achieving a 25-30% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020 should not be a problem.
Bottom line: Nyet
6. Japan: 2.82% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
Japan’s INDC contemplates that by 2030:
Emissions of energy-originated CO2 will be reduced by 25.0% compared to FY 2013 level (24.0% reduction compared to FY 2005 level) (approximately 927 million t-CO2).
A search for words such as “commit”, “pledge” and “binding” again yields zero hits.
Japan, however, is one of the few countries that provides any numbers showing how it plans to achieve its target, which it describes as “a feasible reduction target by bottom-up calculation with concrete policies, measures and individual technologies taking into adequate consideration, inter alia, technological and cost constraints.” In support it supplies tables listing estimated 2030 reductions by sector and source gas and also one showing its proposed 2030 energy mix, which is reproduced below:
Japan’s emissions plan may not be binding, but I get the impression that Japan, or at least the people who wrote its INDC, sincerely intend to pursue it.
Bottom line: “927 million t-CO2” represents a cut of about 2% in current world CO2 equivalent emissions. Better get those nukes back up and running.
7. Canada: 1.96% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
Has Canada bound itself to a 30% reduction by 2030 or not?
Canada intends to achieve an economy-wide target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. (my emphasis)
Canada is committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. (my emphasis)
And how does it propose to achieve this reduction? Through “legislative instruments”. But the target does seem a little ambitious:
Figure 4: Canada’s historical and projected INDC emissions. Note once more the impact of the 2008-9 global recession. Graph from Canada’s INDC
Bottom line: Even if Canada meets its target global CO2 equivalent emissions will be cut by only about 0.3% below current levels.
8. Democratic Republic of the Congo: 1.53% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
The INDC of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is available only in French, but according to Carbon Brief the country plans:
A 17% reduction compared to a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, conditional upon receiving an adequate level of international support estimated to be $12.54bn. Also contains a series of adaptation measures, which it says will cost $9.082bn.
Why does the Congo, whose fossil fuel emissions are negligible, even appear on the list? Because according to the way land use change emissions are calculated forest clearing has turned it from a net carbon sink into a major carbon emitter. Like Brazil, the Congo can cut its emissions by planting forests instead of clearing them, but the Congo does not plan to cut its emissions. It’s one of the many developing countries that tie their reduction targets to “business-as-usual” scenarios rather than to a base year, and all of these plans result in increased emissions. As shown in Figure 4, the Congo’s 17% “reduction” actually represents an increase of around 20% relative to current emissions levels:
Figure 4: Democratic Republic of the Congo CO2 equivalent emissions. The blue line is BAU. The dot shows emissions at 17% below the Congo’s BAU projection. Data from the New Climate Institute.
Bottom line: Emissions will increase, but send money anyway.
8. Indonesia: 1.49% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
Indonesia is another country whose CO2-equivalent emissions are dominantly a result of forest clearing. Yet:
Indonesia has committed to reduce unconditionally 29% of its greenhouse gasses emissions against the business as usual scenario by the year of 2030.
Committed to reduce unconditionally? No other developing country goes this far. And Indonesia doesn’t ask for money either.
But once again the 29% reduction is relative to a BAU scenario, and according to Table 1 of Indonesia’s INDC it actually represents a 52% increase in emissions over 2010 levels (from 1,334 to 2,034 million tons CO2 equivalent). And how large is the increase in relation to Indonesia’s current emissions? I’ve been unable to find out exactly what Indonesia’s current emissions are, but they’ve been jumping around a bit recently:
Figure 5: Indonesia’s CO2 emissions through 2014. Data from the World Bank
Bottom line: As for Brazil
10. Australia: 1.45% of total global CO2 equivalent emissions
Australia’s INDC is very short. It targets a reduction of
26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 relative to absolute economy-wide emissions
And proposes to achieve it by “commencing the development of a range of policies”.
The problem is that according to the most recent government projections Australia will miss its target by a large margin:
Figure 6: Australia’s projected emissions. The red dotted line is the 26% target
But this isn’t really a problem. Australia can adjust its target if it wants to:
Australia reserves the right to adjust our target and its parameters before it is finalised under a new global agreement
Bottom line: Even if Australia meets its target it would lower global CO2 emissions by only about 0.2%.
What’s the sum of the bottom lines for the world’s top ten CO2 emitters (less the USA)? At best, no significant reduction in global CO2 emissions. And when we add all the other countries whose INDCs hide an emissions increase behind a mythical decrease tied to a business-as-usual scenario we find emissions continuing to rise. The UN’s official estimates show global CO2 equivalent emissions increasing through at least 2030 even in the unlikely event all of the 174 countries that submitted INDCs (who collectively account for 88% of global CO2 emission; the USA accounts for the rest) meet their targets:
Figure 7: UN projections of the impact on future global CO2 emissions assuming all countries meet their INDC targets.
Finally, what happens when we include the USA, which submitted an INDC during the Obama Administration? The USA intended (or at least it did before the Trump Administration repudiated Paris):
to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 per cent below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%.
The USA’s INDC included the following graphic of progress to date:
Figure 8: USA emissions and targets
If the USA continues to replace coal plants with gas and renewables – and a number of utilities have plans to do just that – it’s conceivable that this goal could be met whether or not the USA recommits to Paris. But if so the impact would be to cut global CO2 equivalent emissions by only about 2%. And I believe the USA is included in the UN projections shown in Figure 7 anyway.