What's new?

Switzerland INDC: first in, but room for improvement

Switzerland is the first country to formally submit an INDC to the UNFCCC. It aims at halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, with at least a 30% reduction by 2030 domestically. The remainder of the emission reductions would come from “emissions reduction measures abroad”.

Switzerland’s proposal includes forestry accounting, which prevents an unambiguous quantification of its target, and will likely result in weaker emissions reductions across all other sectors.

The INDC is in line only with the least stringent equity proposals.

Switzerland’s INDC includes the option of fulfilling a substantial share of the 50% reduction by 2030 through emission reduction measures undertaken in other countries. The expenditure to achieve this could range from virtually zero to 1.3 billion USD/tCO2.

To bring Switzerland’s INDC in line with fair emissions reductions which are 2?C compatible, it needs to increase the target, shift the balance between domestic and non-domestic action and clarify and limit the role of abatement in its LULUCF sector. Read more.

2015, March 5
Has the EU Commission weakened its climate proposal? Possibly

The European Commission has made a proposal that specifies its “intended nationally determined contribution” (INDC) to the new international agreement on climate change.

The proposal is to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below 1990 in 2030.  However, it now also includes forestry accounting, which could effectively weaken the reductions necessary by all others sectors by a few percentage points.

The original proposal of domestic reductions of 40% is already less ambitious than the range of what studies find to be the EU’s fair contribution to the global effort to limit warming to 2°C.

The EU aims to submit its final proposal to the UN by end of March 2015. The formulation in the final agreement on its INDC will determine whether the inclusion of forestry will weaken the EU’s action on climate change. EU now has a chance to set a good example of transparency and environmental integrity by improving its own INDC. Read more.

2015, February 27
Timetables for zero emissions and 2015 emissions reductions: State of the Science for the ADP agreement

Elements in the ADP Agreement - under negotiation and to be adopted in Paris in December 2015 - are aimed at two different but related global warming limits: holding warming below a 2°C increase above pre-industrial and to reduce global warming levels below 1.5°C by 2100. Many countries and stakeholders have proposed that robust long-term emission reduction goals for 2050 (and beyond) consistent with the two warming limits be included in the agreement. In addition, the time frames for when all greenhouse gases (GHGs) and CO2 emissions need to be zero under these warming limits have also been proposed. This analysis reviews the state-of-the-art of the science and suggests recommended numbers to reflect these goals within the ADP agreement.


Read the full briefing paper and infosheet here.

2015, February 9
China, US and EU post-2020 plans reduce projected warming

For the first time since 2009 the Climate Action Tracker calculates a discernibly lower temperature increase than previously estimated because of new proposed post-2020 actions.

Recent announcements by China, the United States and European Union, who comprise approximately 53% of global emissions, indicate a rising level of ambition, which are reflected in the slightly improved outlook for global warming by the Climate Action Tracker, should these and other governments fully implement their pledges.

These new, post-2020 announcements by the EU, USA, and China are more ambitious than their previous (2020) commitments. The effect of these new announcements is between 0.2 and 0.4 degrees lower warming than in earlier assessments of global ambition, reducing the projected warming to 2.9-3.1oC. However, there is substantial uncertainty from unknown long-term developments in China.

To learn more, read our full briefing and the press release.

2014, December 8
New World Bank report assesses climate risks in Latin American and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa and Europe and Central Asia

The third report Confronting the New Climate Normal in the Turn Down the Heat Series, commissioned by the World Bank and produced by Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, was launched by World Bank Presiden Jim Yong Kim on 23 November 2014. It provides an overview over the expected climate impacts in the three regions Latin American and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa and Europe and Central Asia for warming levels of 1.5°C, 2°C and 4°C above pre-industrial temperatures.

The report highlights the risks that climate change poses for development and poverty eradication. In identifying those risks, climate impacts are assessed across the physical and biophysical through to the social domain. The report issues a call for strong mitigation action and increased efforts to strengthen the resilience of those who are most vulnerable to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

One of the report´s findings relates to unavoidable impacts at around 1.5°C warming by mid-century. For what this means for warming levels by 2100 see our additional briefing here. 

2014, November 24
10 billion mark within reach: current status of Green Climate Fund pledges ahead of this week’s Pledging Conference in Berlin

Several major donors announced their contributions to the initial capitalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in the lead up to the upcoming High-Level Pledging Conference 19-20 November in Berlin. The pledges received so far amount to USD 7.55 billion. The additional pledges by the UK and others expected in Berlin would put the UN's target of raising USD 10 billion by the end of this year is within reach.

Policies for receiving contributions to the fund adopted at the October meeting of the GCF Board in Barbados removed the last roadblock for donors to come forward with their pledges to the fund. Ambitious pledges to the GCF reaching at least USD 10 billion by COP 20 in Lima will be key input to the negotiations under the UNFCCC, building momentum towards adopting an ambitious agreement in 2015.

You can find a graph detailing the current status of pledges to the GCF here


2014, November 17
China and US increase climate ambition: Improvements needed in 2015

The Climate Action Tracker has undertaken an initial assessment of the recent announcements by the United States and China’s new pledges and proposals on emissions reductions for 2025 and 2030, in the context of the present international negotiations for a new climate agreement to be adopted at the end of 2015.

The announcement of increased ambition by the biggest emitters China and the United States one year ahead of the Paris Climate Summit in 2015 is a very important political development. It begins to close the gap between their previous pledges and the emissions limits needed to hold global warming below 2°C.   

It is clear however that both could significantly improve over these new pledges. Adopting world best practice would enable substantial improvements, as outlined in the Climate Action Tracker’s update last month, where we looked at the potential for both countries.

 “These pledges give scope for further improvement during 2015. But for both countries, the increasing challenge now is to match the pledges with policy action,” said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics.

 “Both move closer to a pathway that is compatible with 2°C but would need to increase ambition” says Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute.

“This is a very positive development but needs on-the-ground implementation from both countries to ensure they contribute sufficiently to safeguarding our climate,” Kornelis Blok, Director of Science at Ecofys, concludes.

For further information, read the full briefing.

2014, November 13
Stopping black carbon will not buy time for global warming, new study show

Climate action efforts that focus on so-called “short-lived climate forcers” (SLCF) such as black carbon will do little to keep global warming below 2˚C in the long term, says a new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study, authored, amongst others, by three Climate Analytics scientists - Joeri Rogelj (lead author), Michiel Schaeffer and Bill Hare - shows that efforts to focus on cutting black carbon must go hand in hand with wider efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions, or they will have little effect on global warming.

Some governments have seized upon reducing black carbon as a way to fight climate change in the short term. The new study now puts important question marks next to the effectiveness of such action for limiting climate change in the long term.

The new study has done what previous studies have not: it focused on the link between short-lived climate forcers like black carbon and long-lived forcer CO2.  They are often released from common sources and are therefore intricately linked, for example black carbon is emitted alongside CO2 from a coal-fired power station, just as it is emitted from a diesel vehicle.  For reasons of simplification, this linkage was often ignored by studies that carried out long-term projections of the climate effects of SLCF’s.  But this turns out to be the crucial missing link in the understanding of what black carbon can contribute in the long term.

“Reducing black carbon will clean up our air and reduce our impact on the climate in the next couple of decades, but we find that it cannot be a substitute for action to stop carbon dioxide emissions,” said Dr Joeri Rogelj, lead author of the paper. “It turns out that reducing black carbon cannot buy us time for putting in place stringent carbon dioxide emission reductions.” 

The authors found that while deep cuts in methane in the short term do hedge against exceeding important temperature thresholds, they only do this if linked with deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.  The effects of methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s) are fairly robust across all scenarios, but in the long term, black carbon’s effects become vanishingly small.  Consequently lumping these together would obscure many of these important differences. From a climate perspective, governments would be better to focus on comprehensive CO2mitigation policies, which will lead to reductions in co-emitted pollutants like black carbon along the way. At the same time, the local health benefits of black carbon can still be a valid, yet entirely different, motivation for reducing black carbon in the near term. 

“A rapid phase out of carbon dioxide emissions,  including eliminating unmitigated coal from our energy mix, remains the single biggest measure for early action on global warming, which would also reduce a large of air pollutants including black carbon. This confirms – from a very different perspective – the key finding of a limited carbon budget in the just-published Synthesis Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” said Dr Michiel Schaeffer.

Reducing black carbon and sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere can be done in ways that do not address carbon dioxide, such as cleaning up car exhausts, diesel engines, and changing fuel in cookstoves, but this would contribute little to the fight against global warming in the long term.

“Efforts to clean up black carbon and other pollutants are all very well and good for their human health benefits, but if we don’t tackle the key gas, carbon dioxide, then we’re not going to solve the problem,” said another of the authors, Dr Bill Hare.


Dr Joeri Rogelj: +43 2236 807 393 joeri.rogelj@env.ethz.ch

Dr Michiel Schaeffer: +31 634306393 michiel.schaeffer@climateanalytics.org

Dr Bill Hare:+ 49 1609086 3463 bill.hare@climateanalytics.org


The full paper is available here.

2014, November 5
US China cooperation could make major difference to emissions gap – research
If the US and China were to adopt global best practice in their domestic action on climate, together, the world’s largest emitters could close the 2020 emissions gap by  23%, according to new research. In their latest Climate Action Tracker update, research organisations Climate Analytics, Ecofys and the Pik Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have compared the actions of both China and the US on climate change. 
They looked at the actions of both countries in their most energy-intensive sectors: electricity production, industry, buildings and transport, compared them with each other, and also looked at what each country could achieve if it were to adopt global best practice in those areas. 
“The US and China produce 35 percent of global emissions and have been making efforts to work with each other on climate change. If they scaled up action to adopt the most ambitious policies from across the world, they would both be on the right pathway to keep warming below 2degrees C,” said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics. 
“This needs to include dramatically reducing their use of coal, in order to achieve the deep decarbonisation needed of getting C02 emissions from coal back to 1990 levels by 2030.” Dr Niklas Höhne, of Ecofys, said the sectoral comparisons for both countries produced results showing there were lessons to be learned by both. “We looked at how well both the US and China would do if they each adopted a ‘best of the two’ practice in electricity production, industry, buildings and transport. We found this, alone, would set them in a better direction,” said Höhne. “They could both learn from each other in most sectors.”
If they did this, in relative terms, China could reduce emissions from its current policy projections by 1.2% in 2020 and 20% in 2030 - and 3.2% and 16% for the US. 
But going for global best practice, together, the two countries would reduce emissions in 2020 by 2.8 GtCO2e/a below current policy projections and thus close 23% of the emissions gap. In 2030, the reductions would be of 6.7 GtCO2e/a, or 10% below the Climate Action Tracker global current policy projections.
The sectoral comparisons included these findings: 
• The average US citizen currently consumes four times more electricity than an average Chinese citizen. Both governments have managed to reduce their emissions for electricity produced, but they are still both expected to deploy more coal capacity in the future than is compatible with a 2 ̊C warming limit. If they were both to increase their share of renewable generation at 1.3% per year (the average trend since 2005 in Germany or the UK), that would make a difference.
• China has more efficient cement plants than the US, whereas the US has more efficient iron and steel plants. Both can improve significantly to reach currently best available technology. 
• Car ownership is ten times as high in the USA compared to China, but the difference is declining. In addition, China has still lower emissions per car. Both countries implement vehicle emissions standards; those of China are slightly stronger. However, if both were to move to global best practice (e.g. emission standard for cars as in the EU, increase of share of electric cars as in Norway) there could be a major difference. 
• Floor space per inhabitant is roughly twice in the USA compared to China, with building energy use in the residential sector three times higher in the US than in China. The difference isdecreasing as floor space and specific energy consumption is significantly increasing in China. 
However, again, if both were to move to EU standards, this would produce massive reductions.
For more information, read the full briefing.
2014, October 21
Response to: “Ditch the 2°C warming goal!” by David G. Victor and Charles F. Kennel, Nature published 1 October 2014

In a Comment article in Nature, David G. Victor and Charles Kennel call to ‘Ditch the 2°C warming goal’ adopted by the international community.

Despite scientific and economic evidence to the contrary, they claim this global warming limit cannot be met. Ignoring the well-established scientific methodologies for calculating emission reductions, they assert it is too difficult to calculate the emission reductions needed to meet the 2°C limit.

The authors propose different metrics of measuring climate targets implying that this could lead to a relaxation of the required level of emissions reductions. However, the scientific literature shows clearly that including other metrics (objectives, such as reducing sea level rise, reducing ocean acidification) will likely increase the level of emission reductions needed.

Climate Analytics examines – and refutes - their article in detail.

Read the full Climate Analytics response here.

2014, October 1


Subscribe to Climate Analytics: News
Gofriller Studio