There are a number of problems with the much-touted Paris Agreement, of totemic value to the climate-concerned. These include a lack of an effective process for monitoring compliance, the number of loopholes, and more. But the most fundamental problem seems to be that there is such an obvious lack of true commitment shown by key nations. Whilst this is the problem I wish to focus upon today, the other concerns – and they are many – are too important to ignore and so I may very well return to them on another day.

In short, the Agreement is a failure in its own terms. Don’t take my word for it – here’s what Professor Dieter Helm (now Sir Dieter, thanks to services to “the environment, to energy and utilities policy”) has to say about it:

“The Paris Agreement is, if you believe the political leaders who took an active part, a game changer. It is, on this view, a triumph. As Obama put it, it will save the planet. But you should not believe them: the reality is that Paris demonstrated how big the international failure has been, and provided little by way of comfort that its framework will do the necessary job. You can see it everywhere: climate change has slumped down the list of priorities for companies and governments.

A cold hard reality check on all the rhetoric is needed. Here are the facts. The ambition set out at the Durban Conference was that Paris would see a legal binding global agreement binding the main world players to targets which would jointly keep global warming below 2 degrees. What happened? Most countries came up with their proposed national targets, just as they had for the Copenhagen Agreement. They are voluntary, not legally binding, and they do not add up to the 2 degrees. In the case of the big players, China offered to cap emissions by 2030 (after another 15 years of potential emission growth), India has no real meaningful cap, and the US is embedding the switch from coal to gas. For all three, what will happen has little or nothing to do with Paris. The one bit of good news is incidental: China’s economy may slow down rapidly.

This did not stop the negotiators doing two things: first, making the circus of Paris a regular 5-year event, and thereby keeping all the UN-led bureaucracy and all the NGOs up and running; and setting a target of 1.5 degrees. If you can’t get a legally binding set of targets that add up to 2 degrees, why not set the target at 1.5 degrees anyway?”

So what does the Paris Agreement set out to achieve?

Sir Dieter’s appraisal stands as a sad indictment when one considers the noble aspirations of the Agreement’s architects. In its own words:

“The ultimate objective of this Convention…is to achieve…stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

One hundred and ninety-three countries are members of the United Nations, according to the UN’s own website. This is more than a little intriguing since, according to the UN, 197 countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”). One superficial measure of the success of the Paris Accords is the number of those countries signing up to the UNFCCC who have also signed up to the Paris Accords – 196.

The discrepancy in the numbers does not matter if the important emitters of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) have signed up, have strong plans to reduce their emissions, and can be legally taken to task via an enforcement procedure for failure to honour the Agreement. Unfortunately, however, as Sir Dieter has noticed, this is not the case. Only the first of those criteria has been met. The main emitters have signed up (and of course under President Biden the USA has re-joined); but many of them – notably China and India, and to an extent Russia – have submitted plans which are not going to result in the reduction of GHG emissions (quite the contrary); and in any event the Paris Agreement is utterly toothless.

Definitely maybe – according to circumstance

Space does not permit a detailed analysis of the Agreement here, but this clause is worth highlighting:

“This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.”

Different national circumstances, and the long-standing definition of “developing countries”, which include, rather bizarrely, the likes of China and South Africa, also condemn the Agreement to guaranteed failure in its own terms.

Politics is the art of the possible, and clearly the Paris Agreement took some hammering out before it was reduced to a form that the Parties were prepared to sign. But, however hard the lead negotiators tried, and however sincere some of the Parties were, ultimately the fact that other Parties weren’t so committed meant that the Agreement had to be watered down. And it is that watering down which renders it not fit for purpose, other than as a shibboleth. Its language is the language of aspiration, not of meaningful binding obligation. “Parties aim [i.e. completely non-binding] to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible [meaningless in the absence of a specified date], recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties [a total cop-out for those responsible for the bulk of emissions]”.

Aspirational words like “can”, “may” and “should” abound, but the legally mandatory word “shall” is a rare and shy creature within the Agreement, rarely to be seen, and then certainly not in the context of a meaningful obligation. And the Agreement contains absolutely no enforcement mechanism for use against those signatories who breach its rather limp terms or who fail to meet the offerings set out in their (mostly weak) Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The dragon in the room

Which brings us neatly to NDCs. The Agreement also contains this clause:

“Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years…and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14.”

There is not space here to look in detail at each of the NDCs. However, in short, all NDC submissions seem to contain the usual genuflections to the great climate religion before making vague and rather meaningless commitments which will see their national GHG emissions increase by 2030, the date to which the Accords are working. However, the NDC of one country in particular – China – is just too important to be ignored. Its NDC was submitted on 30th June 2015. An early flavour of where China is coming from doesn’t provide much confidence:

“As a developing country with a population of more than 1.3 billion, China is among those countries that are most severely affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. China is currently in the process of rapid industrialization and urbanization, confronting with multiple challenges including economic development, poverty eradication, improvement of living standards, environmental protection and combating climate change.”

That’s the background; but then there are the fluffy words:

“To act on climate change in terms of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing climate resilience, is not only driven by China’s domestic needs for sustainable development in ensuring its economic security, energy security, ecological security, food security as well as the safety of people’s life and property and to achieve sustainable development, but also driven by its sense of responsibility to fully engage in global governance, to forge a community of shared destiny for humankind and to promote common development for all human beings.”

Then they tell us what steps they have been taking to date:

“By 2014 the following has been achieved:

    • Carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP is 33.8% lower than the 2005 level;
    • The share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption is 11.2%;
    • The forested area and forest stock volume are increased respectively by 21.6 million hectares and 2.188 billion cubic meters compared to the 2005 levels;
    • The installed capacity of hydro power is 300 gigawatts (2.57 times of that for 2005);
    • The installed capacity of on-grid wind power is 95.81 gigawatts (90 times of that for 2005);
    • The installed capacity of solar power is 28.05 gigawatts (400 times of that for 2005); and
    • The installed capacity of nuclear power is 19.88 gigawatts (2.9 times of that for 2005).”

The wind and solar power figures sound impressive, but they don’t tell us what a low base they started from in 2005, though we can work it out – wind power of around 1 gigawatt, (and solar power a tiny fraction of that). They also don’t tell us what their 2014 requirements for energy are or how much is provided by fossil fuels, or how much fossil fuel use increased between 2005 and 2014, so that we can put these 2014 figures into context. It is against that background of partial information, that they tell us what their offer is:

“Based on its national circumstances, development stage, sustainable development strategy and international responsibility, China has nationally determined its actions by 2030 as follows:

    • To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;
    • 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.”

In other words, and most crucially, the biggest GHG emitter on the planet, by a country mile (not that their NDC alludes to that fact) will continue increasing GHG emissions until 2030, by which date fossil fuels will still account for 80% of primary energy consumption. And if for one moment you were under the illusion that they intend to reduce use of fossil fuels, this section will disabuse you:

“Building Low-Carbon Energy System:

    • To control total coal consumption;
    • To enhance the clean use of coal;
    • To increase the share of concentrated and highly-efficient electricity generation from coal;
    • To lower coal consumption of electricity generation of newly built coal-fired power plants to around 300 grams coal equivalent per kilowatt-hour;
    • To expand the use of natural gas: by 2020, achieving more than 10% share of natural gas consumption in the primary energy consumption and making efforts to reach 30 billion cubic meters of coal-bed methane production;
    • To proactively promote the development of hydro power, on the premise of ecological and environmental protection and inhabitant resettlement;
    • To develop nuclear power in a safe and efficient manner;
    • To scale up the development of wind power;
    • To accelerate the development of solar power;
    • To proactively develop geothermal energy, bio-energy and maritime energy;
    • To achieve the installed capacity of wind power reaching 200 gigawatts, the installed capacity of solar power reaching around 100 gigawatts and the utilization of thermal energy reaching 50 million tons coal equivalent by 2020;
    • To enhance the recovery and utilization of vent gas and oilfield-associated gas; and
    • To scale up distributed energy and strengthen the construction of smart grid.”

The key issues (apart from the open admission that GHG emissions will increase until 2030) are the lack of transparency regarding the scale of their emissions currently, the amount by which they will increase, and the amount of current energy generation from fossil fuels, combined with the amount (in real terms as a hard figure) by which they will increase by 2030 (even if the proportion of a greater amount of energy generated by fossil fuels might decrease slightly).

Recently much of the western media became very excited when China’s President Xi offered a few crumbs in the direction of the climate-concerned. They were turned immediately by the Guardian and the BBC into a solemn pledge to reduce GHG emissions by firm dates (which they weren’t, in reality). But now China has produced its latest five year plan. And so the scales lift from the eyes and the Guardian realises that China has no intention of reducing its GHG emissions any time soon:

“China has set out an economic blueprint for the next five years that could lead to a strong rise in greenhouse gas emissions if further action is not taken to meet the country’s long-term goals.

The 14th five-year plan, published in Beijing on Friday, gave few details on how the world’s biggest emitter would meet its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2060, set out by President Xi Jinping last year, and of ensuring that carbon dioxide output peaks before 2030.

China will reduce its “emissions intensity” – the amount of CO2 produced per unit of GDP – by 18% over the period 2021 to 2025, but this target is in line with previous trends, and could lead to emissions continuing to increase by 1% a year or more. Non-fossil fuel energy is targeted to make up 20% of China’s energy mix, leaving plenty of room for further expansion of the country’s coal industry. Swithin Lui, of the Climate Action Tracker and NewClimate Institute, said: “[This is] underwhelming and shows little sign of a concerted switch away from a future coal lock-in. There is little sign of the change needed [to meet net zero].”

And that’s before it revises its NDC, which will surely be linked to the five year plan’s stated objectives. Watch this space.

There is also a strong argument that the developed world, while claiming to reduce its own GHG emissions, is simply outsourcing them to China. More on that another day, perhaps. None of these issues are dealt with by the Paris Accords, of course.

The China problem is just the start

I have focused upon China here because theirs is the most obvious, and most significant, example of toothless commitment. I could continue in this vein, but rather than swamp you with detailed dissections of other countries’ NDCs, I shall leave you with some general observations regarding their nature and how they serve to undermine the noble aspirations of the Agreement:

a) Less is more

With a few exceptions, the shorter the NDC, the more meaningful the offer; the longer the NDC, the more likely it is that a small impoverished country with negligible emissions is seeking to demonstrate how signed-up it is to the process, how seriously it takes it all, what terrible problems it is already encountering from climate change, and therefore why it really should be given all the money it is asking for.

b) The worst offenders are the least committed

Some of the signatories, who were among the first to submit their NDCs – Switzerland, EU, USA, Norway etc., really do seem to be serious about the whole thing. Unfortunately, even including the US, only countries responsible for up to 30% of global GHG emissions were offering real reductions. Some of the main emitters of GHG emissions (most notably China, but also India, Russia, down to the likes of South Korea, and Bangladesh) have not engaged with the process at all. They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. China, most obviously, is the rock on which the Paris Accords break. But there are others.

c) Fossil fuel export is blithely ignored

The rules for accounting for fossil fuel extraction and export let the countries who gain most from this totally off the hook. The Middle East oil producing countries are the ones most obviously to benefit from making the right noises whilst in reality making no meaningful commitment to the process whatsoever. But they’re not alone. As is the case with Canada, they make a virtue in their NDC about their GHG emissions, but they’re remarkably coy about their fossil fuel extraction and export, and how dependent their economies are on it.

d) The sums don’t add up

The sums required by the NDCs of some undeveloped countries are quite modest, especially on a per capita basis, while others are truly staggering, most notably India and somewhat cheekily South Africa. In total, however, I would suggest they are unaffordable, especially in view of the financial carnage caused by coronavirus and the world’s reaction to it. Even if the money can be found, so that conditional, as opposed to the much less ambitious unconditional, targets are achieved, the net effect is that GHG emissions are on target to grow massively – just not as massively, perhaps, as would otherwise be the case. Should people who claim to be concerned about AGW therefore really have been so hysterical about Trump’s decision to take the USA out of the Accords? Personally I think not. Unless China, India and Russia can ever be brought on board, and unless rapidly growing populations in developing countries can somehow be controlled, The whole thing is hopeless, not least in view of the perfectly understandable desire of developing countries to industrialise and raise living standards, and a growing tendency to the urbanisation of the populations of such countries.

e) Developing countries want to eat their cake and have it

Many developing countries are, perfectly understandably, seeking to use the Paris Accords to lever large sums of money from the international community to improve the lot of their people. In many cases, they seek to develop renewable energy to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (some of the island countries are almost entirely dependent on imports of fossil fuels). I suspect this is more about saving money and increasing energy independence than it is about “saving the planet”. In almost every case they seek to improve GDP alongside increasing populations. Inevitably, whatever they do, GHG emissions are going to increase, and the idea that the Paris Accords can do anything about this is a sham.

A room too full

This article has already referred to the dragon in the room, but the dragon shares the room with several elephants, which space has not permitted this article to look at. The elephants can destroy the purpose of the Agreement as effectively as any bull in a china shop, and they all deserve scrutiny – perhaps in another article.


  1. Chinese foreign policy has the merit of transparency. As part of their their project of long term economic development and protection of their territorial integrity, they are very careful to stick to the rules laid down by the international order (i.e. us) and they get upset when we disregard these rules, e.g. by bombing their embassy in Belgrade, or starting half a dozen futile wars close to their borders.

    The incident most relevant to the Paris Accord was probably what occurred at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 when the Maldives representative, a certain Mark Lynas, broke diplomatic confidentiality by revealing the Chinese position in a secret negotiation session in a scoop in the Guardian. The fact that the West thinks there’s nothing wrong with breaking the basic rules of diplomacy when its done by a Green activist told the Chinese all they need to know about climate change negotiations.


  2. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Paris accord, really the whole anti-fossil fuel accounting muddle, is Greta’s thing. She gets invited to Davos to point her finger at the elites who don’t walk their talk, and they love her for it. It’s so much hellfire and brimstone, along with self-flagellation. Until the false premises of global warming/climate change are renounced, the energy foundations of modern society will be eroded by the environmental Luddites.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Here’s what I”m talking about:

    Climate Activists storm the bastion of Exxon Mobil, here seen without their shareholder disguises.


  4. Thanks for the comments, from the newbie here. Ed Hoskins, we’re definitely singing from the same hymn book (or should I reserve such a phrase for those behind the climate alarmism religion?).


  5. “The ultimate objective of this Convention…is to achieve…stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

    So where’s the panic? “Greenhouse gas concentrations”, by which they mean CO2, are unlikely ever to reach a level where “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” is possible since, in spite of the Chicken Little panic-mongering, there is little to no scientific evidence that CO2 is a major (or even any) driver of atmospheric temperature change. There is ample evidence available on-line that current CO2 concentrations are at historically low levels and the human race has happily survived.

    Earth’s eco-systems are remarkably robust and resilient so there is no chance that they will have any difficulty in coping with any puny human attempts — accidental or deliberate — to destroy them and so far the only measurable effect of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been to improve crop yields to the point where we are feeding more people better on less land than ever in human history.

    Enabling “economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”, as those who delight in such knee-jerk clichés know all too well (most of them anyway), is a bad joke. Any aspect of ‘development’ which is not “sustainable” will not survive, as the current pandemic is demonstrating, but the UN apparatchiks and their eco-useful-idiots don’t mean “sustainable” in the normal sense; their definition is “without damage to the environment” (according to Chambers) while being hypocritically selective about the meaning of “damage” — wind farms do not damage the environment but coal mines to produce the coal to make the steel for the pylons apparently do. Likewise intensive farming damages the environment even though it frees up land which can be used for re-afforestation, which would help the sequestration of CO2 which they ought to be in favour of.

    This CO2 obsession has been dangled in front of our eyes like a hypnotist’s gold watch for three decades and it’s a Malthusian con trick. The genuinely “developing” world — which does not include China or India or South Africa — is perfectly entitled to look to the developed world for help, both practical and financial, to drag itself up to our standard of living, but that’s not what they are being offered. They are in effect being offered handouts to stay poor, denied the means of fuelling their own industrial revolution on the totally spurious grounds that allowing them fossil fuels will destroy the planet.

    Shellenberger’s ‘Apocalypse Never’ says it better than I can.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. @ Mark, congrats on the new appointment. I look forward to reading more of your articles.

    A trio of things. You mention in passing the “exported” emissions from China. Now, if I were the Chinese, and the Western bugs get too pesky, I’d be tempted to delete all emissions related to stuff sent to other countries. Oh, really? You don’t like our emission cuts? Too small for you huh buddy? Well, let’s just add 10% to yours that you cleverly avoided by importing all your tat from us.

    (This is unrealistic, not least because they want us to keep buying their tat.)

    Second, the idea of letting countries set their own targets is ludicrous. The UK is leading the way, in the name of embodying “moral authority.” In fact we are going to lead the way off a cliff. In fact, like Wile E. Coyote, we might be over the edge already but haven’t noticed yet. I have a very simple proposition. Let them get someone with a computer, or maybe a Casio FX-82a^, or the back of an envelope, to tell everyone what their emissions targets ought to be. This will be a two-stage process.

    i) I work out the global budget – *kof* I mean the independently-chosen arbiter does. I’m calling it 5GtC per year in perpetuity.

    ii) I divide the 5GtC among the world population, weighting each country’s total allowance by its population.

    The poorer countries can increase their emissions and the richer will have to reduce theirs, but we will all asymptote to the same value – emphatically NOT zero. (If we allow the population to be 7 billion, it comes out to about 5/7 tC each person.)

    Three: back to China…… you cannot trust a damn word they say. If they promise net zero by 2060 and don’t deliver, that won’t matter a damn because they will by then be the sole superpower, unless the democratic countries actually grow a pair. To judge from the buffoon Boris’s plan for the future, we will keep tut-tutting about how nasty Mr Xi is, while still outsourcing all our manufacturing to him (“yeh, he’s a bit dodgy, ya know, but he’s cash in hand – the other builder wanted two grand more for VAT or something, and who has got two grand to spare in this day and age, what with the young folk all unemployed, you know, it’s terrible, I don’t know how it got this way, Aunt Maud was saying that she can’t even afford to have the gas fire on, still I suppose it’s all progress, amirite, how’s your mother?”)

    Four: I said three, but I forgot what the third one was, made up a new third that might plausibly have been the original third, then remembered the real original third. It goes back to Paris itself and that cheer that went up at the end. At the time I looked at those fools, those nodding dogs, backslappers, those vacant-eyed nothings and asked myself: Do they really believe they have achieved something (i.e. are they just plain stupid), or are they just putting on a show (they are liars)?

    Go straight to the heroic last 30 seconds if you can bear to.

    ^How is it that I can still remember the model of calculator I owned in the mid 80s?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Mark’s focus in this article is quite rightly on the “lack of an effective process for monitoring compliance” and the “lack of true commitment shown by key nations.”

    On monitoring compliance: claiming to be able accurately to tot up gigatonnes of CO2 is lunacy. Who really knows what’s coming out of Chinese exhaust pipes and what’s being absorbed by newly flourishing Chinese forests? How do you convert hectares into gigatonnes? Climate believers would hand over the governance of the planet to mad bean counters with pie charts where their brains should be.

    On the lack of true commitment: I believe compliance by the annex 1 nations is dependent on the rich nations coughing up $100 billion a year. Since they won’t, the deal is off. Only a dozen or so countries count in the CO2 stakes. The rest are there for decoration – dozens of small island states where diesel generation is the only practical proposition (no port for coal, and windmills fall over in hurricanes) are voting fodder who can be bought off with a few million dollars.

    The real story is China. By rigidly sticking to the rules, (making promises which are within the guidelines for developing countries, but useless for reducing emissions) China has screwed the whole COP project. Since Paris there’s been an absurd propaganda campaign from the Greens to pretend that China is the new leader of the march to zero emissions, but as Mark points out, it’s “the most obvious, and most significant, example of toothless commitment.”

    There’s so much more that’s interesting about China at the moment, like the fact that they are second in space exploration (behind the USA) and second in the development of hypersonic weapons (behind Russia, but way ahead of the USA) which make classic naval warfare redundant. And the fact that the Pentagon thinks that China will invade Taiwan within six years, provoking a war with the USA. And that the woke western media are promoting fantasies about genocide of the Uighurs as if a world war was just what end-of-the-world-fearing Guardian readers want. Maybe they do.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Thank you for the additional comments, all encouraging me to do more and produce a follow-up piece. I won’t be giving any secrets away if I say that some of the comments have touched on very important issues to which I will return. However, this article was already too long to deal with them in it in any depth, so watch this space.


  9. “Which country has made the biggest climate commitment?
    The US, EU and UK are leading the race to cut emissions targets among the world’s biggest economies”

    “…Who’s missing?
    China is the world’s biggest emitter and has yet to submit an NDC to the UN. The country has a current target of peaking emissions by 2030. However, analysts say this is much too late, and many climate experts are pushing Beijing to seek to peak greenhouse gas emissions in 2025, which they say would be feasible.

    China’s latest five-year plan, unveiled last month, disappointed many by failing to include a tougher target. But this week president Xi Jinping said China’s coal consumption would peak in 2025, which would take the country – and the world – a long way towards the cuts needed….

    …Are the targets compulsory?
    None of these targets are compulsory. The 2015 Paris agreement comes in two parts: the binding treaty, by which all countries have pledged to hold global heating well below 2C, with an aspiration to limit heating to no more than 1.5C, above pre-industrial levels; and the non-binding annex containing the NDCs. Countries can change or re-submit their NDCs, or ignore them – there are no sanctions….”


  10. “Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined”

    “China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed.

    The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2019.

    The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.

    Scientists warn that without an agreement between the US and China it will be hard to avert dangerous climate change.

    China’s emissions more than tripled over the previous three decades, the report from the US-based Rhodium Group added.

    The Asian giant has the world’s largest population, so its per person emissions are still far behind the US, but the research said those emissions have increased too, tripling over the course of two decades….

    …China is heavily reliant on coal power.

    The country is currently running 1,058 coal plants – more than half the world’s capacity….

    …According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific analysis that tracks government climate action, China’s NDC rating is “highly insufficient” and “are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2C”….”


  11. “If we can vaccinate the world, we can beat the climate crisis
    Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo
    Rich countries can’t expect to be trusted on their climate promises if they fail the poorest on vaccines”

    Well, I think the authors have gone to the nub of the problem regarding the Paris Agreement, COP 26, and all efforts to deal with “the climate emergency”. Action on the part of the west is futile unless the whole world joins in; in joining in, the developing world will be shooting itself in the foot in terms of damaging attempts to grow economies and improve the lot of people whose lives are often pretty awful; and they need money – lots of western money – to persuade them to go along. That western money hasn’t been forthcoming much, if at all, so far, and in the aftermath of covid, with western governments more indebted than ever, does anyone seriously think it’s going to be forthcoming now?

    “The success of Cop26 depends in part upon larger developing countries such as Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan committing to sacrifices that will only pay off if countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France and Canada can be relied upon to stick to their own commitments.

    By agreeing to cut CO2 emissions, these developing countries will potentially curtail their own growth and perhaps even have to give up equipment that protects them from an already changing climate in the short term, such as cheap, polluting air conditioners. This sacrifice will only pay off if rich countries respond by cutting their own emissions so that worst-case scenarios can be avoided. Without everyone doing their part, we’re effectively rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship. In the aftermath of Covid-19, these countries may wonder what guarantee they have that when the next disaster strikes – and domestic pressures mount – rich countries won’t abandon their commitments. Trust, therefore, is key.

    Even if rich countries made binding commitments to domestic climate policies at Cop26, this would be unlikely to get developing countries to sign a demanding agenda. There is a strong and entirely justified perception that the world’s poor are being asked to make sacrifices to atone for rich countries’ past sins of careless growth. The fact that these countries have now shown they care little about the wellbeing of poorer nations obviously does not help.

    Developing countries will, quite reasonably, demand to be compensated for the more onerous choices that Cop26 demands of them. Research by colleagues in our MIT lab J-PAL, which runs the King Climate Action Initiative, demonstrates that this kind of conditional compensation works: in Uganda, paying landowners to not cut down trees has curbed deforestation and reduced carbon emissions at a cost of less than $1 per tonne. Researchers are studying dozens of other policy innovations that could work across the world – from emissions trading to incentives to reducing crop burning.

    These schemes only work if developing countries trust they will be paid compensation. Such promises have been made: advanced economies have formally agreed to raise $100bn per year for the Green Climate Fund to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. But at the moment, both developing countries and their citizens are questioning whether they can trust them to stick to their part of the bargain.”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Good luck with that:

    “Climate change: US pushes China to make faster carbon cuts”

    “US climate envoy John Kerry has called on China to increase the speed and depth of its efforts to cut carbon.

    Without sufficient emissions reductions by China, Mr Kerry said, the global goal of keeping temperatures under 1.5C was “essentially impossible”.

    Mr Kerry said he was convinced that China could do more and the US was willing to work closely to secure a reasonable climate future.

    Every major economy must now commit to meaningful reductions by 2030, he said.”


  13. “Merkel: Germany has not done enough to hit Paris climate targets
    Chancellor says record on reducing carbon emissions ‘not sufficient’ as she reflects on 16-year leadership”

    “Angela Merkel has conceded Germany’s record on reducing carbon emissions was “not sufficient” to meet the global warming targets of the Paris climate agreement, as the chancellor reflected on the achievements and missed opportunities of her 16-year leadership.

    Speaking at the last of her annual summer press conferences on Thursday before stepping down as leader of Europe’s largest economy after federal elections on 26 September, Merkel said Germany “has done a lot” to recalibrate its economy in the face of the climate crisis, increasing the share of renewables in its energy mix from 10% to 40%, and lowering carbon emission by 20% in the period from 1990 to 2010, and by another 20% in the 10 years since.

    The 67-year-old nonetheless conceded that “what has been achieved is not sufficient” when measured against the Paris agreement’s target to limit global warming to well below 2C, preferably to 1.5C, compared with pre-industrial levels. Not just Germany, but the whole world had failed to meet its targets, she said….

    …She defended her government’s 2011 decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022, which critics say has made the country more reliant on coal power. “For Germany, the die has been cast,” she said. “I don’t see a government of the future changing anything in that respect.”…”


  14. It’s still going well, then…:

    “Plans of four G20 states are threat to global climate pledge, warn scientists
    ‘Disastrous’ energy policies of China, Russia, Brazil and Australia could stoke 5C rise in temperatures if adopted by the rest of the world”

    “A key group of leading G20 nations is committed to climate targets that would lead to disastrous global warming, scientists have warned. They say China, Russia, Brazil and Australia all have energy policies associated with 5C rises in atmospheric temperatures, a heating hike that would bring devastation to much of the planet.

    The analysis, by the peer-reviewed group Paris Equity Check, raises serious worries about the prospects of key climate agreements being achieved at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow in three months. The conference – rated as one of the most important climate summits ever staged – will attempt to hammer out policies to hold global heating to 1.5C by agreeing on a global policy for ending net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

    The EU and UK have outlined emission pledges that could bring the world close to these aspirations. However, those of China, Russia, Brazil and Australia – which remain reliant on continued fossil-fuel burning – would trigger temperature rises of 5C if followed by the rest of the world. This dramatic discrepancy reveals a deep division over the energy and environment policies of the world’s richest nations. “Without more ambition from China, Brazil, Russia and Australia, Cop26 will fail to deliver the future our planet needs,” warned Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF.

    The stark difference between the climate plans of different G20 nations – who together are responsible for 85% of all global carbon emissions – was underlined last week in Naples, when a meeting of member states’ energy and environment ministers ended with the group failing to agree on a package of commitments to tackle climate change. “The G20 is failing to deliver,” said the online activist network Avaaz.

    The G20 meeting had been viewed as a critically important staging post leading up to Cop26 and its failure to find common ground underlines the crucial differences that divide nations in the group and indicate it is not going to be easy to secure a meaningful accord in Scotland.”


  15. More from that pre-meet today:

    “COP26 climate summit president says progress made, but not enough
    By Matt McGrath
    Environment correspondent”

    “The first in-person meeting of climate ministers in 18 months has seen some tentative progress, says the UK minister who will lead the Glasgow COP26 meeting.

    Alok Sharma said that the countries aligned more closely on climate issues but on some key matters they were “not yet close enough”.

    One of the outstanding questions is the phasing out of coal for energy.

    Continued use was incompatible with a key climate target, Mr Sharma said….

    …Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the UN’s climate science body – have begun two weeks of discussions to try and agree a new report on the state of the global climate.

    On the political front, environment ministers from the G20 group of nations met in Naples, Italy, last week to try and make progress on questions such as the elimination of coal from power generation.

    While there was strong support for the step, it was opposed by China and India….”.

    What a surprise!


  16. “‘What can we do?’ Chinese discuss role of climate crisis in deadly floods
    Media and citizens have begun asking if China has properly prepared for climate emergency”

    “Awareness of the climate emergency has been growing in China over the last decade, in part due to Beijing’s involvement in high-profile international initiatives such as the Paris agreement. In a China Center for Climate Change Communication survey in 2012, 55% of the respondents said the climate crisis was mostly caused by human activities. In 2017, 75.2% believed they had already experienced impacts of the climate emergency, and nearly 80% were worried about it.”

    Excuse me? What did that BBC article just say? Oh yes, that was it:

    “…ministers from the G20 group of nations met in Naples, Italy, last week to try and make progress on questions such as the elimination of coal from power generation.

    While there was strong support for the step, it was opposed by China and India….”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.