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?

34 Comments

  1. This global leadership caper has a Stalinist/imperialist ring about it. Miliband should understand that we are a bit short of gunboats these days.

    Like

  3. Mark: you’ll find that the NDCs of many of the really big emitters (e.g. China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Iran and Saudi Arabia) are essentially meaningless.

    I note that, according to that Guardian article, NDCs ‘are required under the Paris agreement, to set out how countries will limit global temperature rises to 1.5C above preindustrial levels, beyond which the impacts of the climate crisis become catastrophic and irreversible‘. If that’s true, we’re all doomed as for some time now it’s been clear that global temperatures will comfortably exceed 1.5ºC.

    Like

  5. Robin, I think it unlikely that global temperatures will comfortably exceed 1.5ºC. They may have done briefly (but too suddenly to be due to the demon CO2) but the current entirely natural warming spike caused by the “unmentionable” Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption is dissipating rapidly: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2025_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg.

    We will more likely see global cooling from the pending cold phases of the AMO (as in the 1960-70s) and modern GSM (400 years post the Maunder Minimum).

    Like

  6. The very existence of NDCs is a refutation of the claim that Net Zero is the “growth opportunity of the twenty-first century.”

    Like

  7. Doug: I should have qualified my comment with ‘if the IPCC has got it right‘. Here’s why:

    In its 2018 Special Report the IPCC recommended that, to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC target, global emissions should ‘decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030’. As global CO2 emissions in 2010 were 34.0 gigatonnes (Gt), they would therefore have to come down to 18.7 Gt by 2030 to meet the target. But, just three countries (China, the US and India) already exceed that (by 2.2 Gt) and all are likely to increase (or at best stabilise) their emissions over the next five years. Therefore, if the IPCC got it right, it’s certain that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC target will be exceeded. And that’s true even if over the next five years every other country in the world reduced its emissions radically (e.g.to more than 50%) and emissions from shipping and aviation were reduced pro rata.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Robin,

    Thanks for the link to the NDCs. However, that’s the same as the one I included in my piece. Unless I’m failing to use it properly, it’s just a list of the countries and their NDCs, and doesn’t allow you to access the contents of the NDCs themselves.

    Elsewhere on the UN website there is a better list, which does allow you to see the contents of the NDCs themselves, but as I said in my piece, they’re the original ones submitted in the first flush of enthusiasm in the wake of the Paris Agreement. Perhaps the UN is waiting (if so they may have a long wait) for all of the NDCs to be updated before allowing interested parties to access their contents?

    However, as you say, the NDCs that have been submitted by China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Iran and Saudi Arabia are indeed essentially meaningless. I read them all at the time, and the thing that struck me about them was how hollow and non-serious they all were.

    Like

  10. While I’m on about NDCs, here are the notes I made about Indonesia’s at the time:

    Their INDC is surprisingly light on detail, for a country with approximately 260 million inhabitants (the 4th most populous country on the planet) and with rather large problems from burning forests (ironically much of which is to clear land for biofuels growth).

    Before getting to the detail of their INDC, this article is of interest, to put things into context:

    http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/10/indonesia%E2%80%99s-fire-outbreaks-producing-more-daily-emissions-entire-us-economy

    “According to estimates released this week by Guido van der Werf on the Global Fire Emissions Database, there have been nearly 100,000 active fire detections in Indonesia so far in 2015, which since September have generated emissions each day exceeding the average daily emissions from all U.S. economic activity. Following several recent intense outbreaks of fires—in June 2013, March 2014 and November 2014—the country is now on track to experience more fires this year than it did during the 2006 fire season, one of its worst on record.”

    “Global Forest Watch Fires shows that more than half of these fires have occurred on peatland areas, concentrated mainly in South Sumatra, South and Central Kalimantan, and Papua….The burning of tropical peatlands is so significant for greenhouse gas emissions because these areas store some of the highest quantities of carbon on Earth, accumulated over thousands of years. Draining and burning these lands for agricultural expansion (such as conversion to oil palm or pulpwood plantations) leads to huge spikes in greenhouse gas emissions. Fires also emit methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2), but peat fires may emit up to 10 times more methane than fires occurring on other types of land. Taken together, the impact of peat fires on global warming may be more than 200 times greater than fires on other lands.”

    Their INDC even admits that “Most emissions (63%) are the result of land use change and peat and forest fires, with combustion of forest fuels contributing approximately 19% of total emissions.”

    All of which makes the virtuous noises in Indonesia’s INDC a little hard to stomach. They offer an unconditional 29% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, and up to 41% with international support, but this is against a Business as Usual scenario. The problem with this is the rate at which their GHG emissions are increasing. They tell us that GHG emissions were 1,400 MtCO2eq in 2000, had risen to 1,800 in 2005, and the BaU scenario will see them double by 2030 from their 2000 figure, to 2,800. So even the conditional offer would only take them back to 2005 levels, and the unconditional offer would see their emissions rise.

    Their INDC runs to only 8 pages plus a 3 page annex. It is extremely light on hard information. They would like international financial assistance, but they don’t say how much. They devote one small paragraph to steps to clamp down on land use change, despite the hugely significant importance of this topic in the context of their GHG emissions.

    To say I’m unimpressed would be an understatement. And I’m not the only one to be cynical about their INDC:

    http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/indonesia.html

    Like

  11. My notes on Russia’s NDC, for good measure:

    Perhaps it’s appropriate that the submission date was April Fool’s Day. The whole submission, in its English translation, runs to only two and a half pages.

    At first blush the offer looks reasonably impressive:

    “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.”

    Russia (and the other ex-SSRs who play the same game) can plausibly claim that 1990 is an appropriate reference year, because 1990 is the base year for the national GHG inventory pursuant to the various climate protocols. However, that is extremely convenient for Russia, as it’s also the last year before their economy fell off a cliff in the wake of the break-up of the USSR.

    Their INDC rather disingenuously says this:

    “GDP of the Russian Federation in 2012 amounted to 172.9% of the 2000 level while the GHG emissions (without land use, land-use change and forestry) had reached only 111.8% of the 2000 level. Thus, as the GDP was growing significantly at that time period, the increase in GHG emissions was minimal. The economic growth and GHG emissions can be definitively decoupled upon achievement of the earlier announced indicator, i.e. limitation of the GHG emissions to at most 75% of 1990 levels by the year 2020, and the INDC announced for 2030. There will be GHG emissions reduction per GDP unit.”

    However, the reality (which one has to search for on the internet, because Russia’s INDC certainly doesn’t tell us) is that despite GHG emissions starting to grow again in the Russian Federation from roughly the late 1990s, current levels are around 35% less than the 1990 figure. So, the offer actually amounts to a real increase in Russia’s GHG emissions by 2030. I’m not the only one who is unimpressed. Climate Action Tracker’s website says this (on a page last updated on 11th May 2017):

    “Russia’s INDC emissions reduction target not only lies significantly above the emissions levels projected under current policies but also is one of the weakest put forward by any government. Russia’s emissions targets are, according to our analysis, “inadequate” under all interpretations of a “fair” contribution to global mitigation efforts.

    Russia would not need to implement any new policy to achieve its current Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) target of 25 to 30% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is less ambitious than it appears at face value: it actually lies significantly above current policy projections. The large drop in emissions since 1990 is not explained by ambitious policies, but rather by the collapse of the centrally planned economy in the early 1990s.

    Not only are the targets significantly above current policy projections, but the government has also made it clear that their achievement is conditional on the accounting rules advantageous to Russia such as “the maximum possible account of the absorbing capacity of forests” (UNFCCC, 2015). This means that Russia’s emissions may increase significantly in the future without it missing its INDC emissions target, which is incompatible with the efforts needed to achieve the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.

    Since our last assessment in 2016, there has been little progress in climate action implementation in Russia – and the new national strategy may delay the ratification of the Paris Agreement until at least 2019. Despite low political ambition, recent increases in investment in renewable energy, triggered by their co-benefits, as well as lower economic growth than previously expected will slow emissions growth. However, to contribute its fair share to global mitigation, Russia urgently needs to strengthen mitigation action in all sectors and reduce its high carbon-intensity. A first step in the right direction would be to present a strengthened 2030 target, with an emissions level below current policy projections.”

    It looks as though Putin has long practised sticking two fingers up at the world, while pretending to play ball.

    Like

  12. Pingback: News Round-Up – The Daily Sceptic

  13. Mark, in that link the text of each country’s NDC can be accessed by clicking on the second column headed ‘Title’. If a translation is required, as for China and Russia, it’s in the fourth column.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Thanks to Robin’s advice, I can now access the few updated NDCs that have been submitted to the UN. Given that the NDC submitted by the USA under the Biden administration is likely to be ignored by Trump’s administration, I thought I should look at Brazil’s NDC, since it represents the NDC of the biggest emitter to date (excluding the USA) which has bothered to update its NDC. It can be found here:

    https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2024-11/Brazil_Second%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contribution%20%28NDC%29_November2024.pdf

    So far as I can see, it’s a word salad of vague aspirations but no firm commitments. It talks big about just transitions and climate justice. The firmest words I can find seem to be these (at the end of page 23):

    After a careful process involving analysis and consultation with federal ministries within the
    Interministerial Committee on Climate Change (CIM), Brazil is setting an economy-wide target of
    reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 59 to 67 percent below 2005 levels by 2035, which
    is consistent, in absolute terms, with an emission level of 1.05 to 0.85 GtCO2e, according to the
    most recent inventory data    .

    That’s a target, not a commitment. Why start with a 2005 date, I wondered, rather than the usual starting date of 1990? The cynic in me wondered if Brazil’s emissions in 2005 were higher than in 1990. Sure enough, depending on which measure you use, they increased between 1990 and 2005 by somewhere between 49.7% and 68.4%:

    https://unfccc.int/files/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/ghg_profiles/application/pdf/bra_ghg_profile.pdf

    Interestingly, because oil and gas produced in Brazil but exported for use elsewhere don’t count with regard to Brazil’s assessed emissions, and so its oil plans aren’t mentioned in its NDC. Which is just as well:

    https://brazilenergyinsight.com/2025/08/11/brazil-sets-new-oil-and-gas-production-record-with-4-9-million-barrels-per-day/

    Brazil broke a record for oil and natural gas production in June of this year, with 4.9 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. This unprecedented result, released in the Monthly Oil and Natural Gas Production Bulletin of the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP), affiliated with the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), considers pre-salt, post-salt, and onshore production.

    Oil production reached 3.7 million barrels per day, a 10.1% increase compared to June 2024. Natural gas production reached 181 million cubic meters per day, a 20.9% increase compared to June of last year. Considering only the pre-salt layer, which accounts for 78.8% of the national total, a record was also set, with 3.8 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. The volume is 12.7% higher compared to the same month in 2024. Offshore fields accounted for 97.6% of the oil and 85.3% of the natural gas produced in the country.

    The Tupi field, in the pre-salt Santos Basin, was the largest producer, registering 794,000 barrels of oil per day and 40 million cubic meters of natural gas per day. The installation with the highest production was the Guanabara platform ship, in the shared Mero field, with 183,000 barrels of oil and 12 million cubic meters of natural gas per day.

    What a farce this all is.

    Like

  16. I selected one of the emissions minnows at random – the Solomon Islands:

    https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2025-09/Solomon%20Islands%20NDC%203.0.pdf

    As I suspected, they are keen to participate because they want money. Try this at page 21 (“Means of Implementation and Support”):

    ...the Solomon Islands does not have all the financial, capacity and technology means of implementation to move fast with the transformational change needed to significantly reduce national GHG emissions and adapt to the changing climate. Experience since 2015 tells us that the lack of significant international support is a key factor limiting quicker transformation in the Solomon Islands and progress toward areas covered by the Paris Agreement.

    Every climate action in the Solomon Islands, including transparency, mitigation (both with measures and additional measures), adaptation and loss and damage, requires different levels of capacity building, technology development & transfer, and financial support. The government makes reliable efforts within its limited current capacity to work across ministries, with development partners and other stakeholders to identify and structure the different support needs for developing, funding, and implementing climate actions.

    Due to the lack of resources, the government acknowledges that current outcomes of identifying climate actions and support needs have been limited to only the highest priorities, and further depth is required for addressing more climate actions and support needs throughout various sectors to achieve the transition needed across the country.

    With the assistance from several development partners, government efforts to facilitate support include operationalising climate finance advisors, preparing investment plans and project concepts,
    operationalising the iMRV tool to measure progress and report support needed and received, and
    participating in regional and international forums to encourage additional support for the Solomon Islands.

    Organisations wishing to support further climate action in the Solomon Islands are encouraged to contact the Climate Change Division (CCD) of MECDM, who can provide additional information on support needs and help direct inquiries directly to the applicable ministerial divisions...

    I don’t blame them, but the whole process is turning into a farce. Big emitters ignore it. Medium-sized emitters associated with the process (COP hosts, usually) make vague noises about doing the right thing. Small emitters, poor countries hope for funding. The UK makes a lot of noise and trashes its economy and its countryside in a futile attempt to “lead the world”, while exporting jobs and emissions to countries with lower environmental standards, possibly thereby increasing total emissions in the process. I repeat: what a farce.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Meanwhile:

    “Nations’ plans to ramp up coal, gas and oil extraction ‘will put climate goals beyond reach’

    New data shows governments now planning more fossil fuel production in coming decades than they were in 2023″

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/22/fossil-fuels-coal-gas-oil-extraction-climate-goals-beyond-reach

    Governments around the world are ramping up coal, gas and oil extraction which will put climate goals beyond reach, new data has shown.

    Far from reducing reliance on fossil fuels, nations are planning higher levels of fossil fuel production for the coming decades than they did in 2023, the last time comparable data was compiled.

    This increase goes against the commitments that countries have made at UN climate summits to “transition away from fossil fuels” and phase down production, particularly of coal.

    If all of the planned new extraction takes place, the world will produce more than double the quantity of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with holding global temperature rises to 1.5C above preindustrial levels….

    Link here:

    https://productiongap.org/

    Liked by 1 person

  18. The linked Guardian article states that at ‘the Cop28 summit in Dubai in 2023, countries agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels”’. But they didn’t.

    It’s true that the COP28 ‘stocktake’ – otherwise unremarkable – did include what many commentators saw (and, as the Guardian illustrates, still see) as an important breakthrough. In its paragraph 28, it said this:

    “The Conference of the Parties … calls on Parties to contribute to the following … Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”

    So, commentators said, there you have it: at long last we have an agreement (a ‘pledge’) to transition away from fossil fuels.

    But that’s not correct. The reality was that Paragraph 28 also said that parties must ‘take account’ of the Paris Agreement and, as specifically confirmed further down in paragraph 38, the ‘stocktake’ repeated Article 4.4 of that Agreement. In other words, developing countries, the source of 65% of global emissions, continued to be exempted from cutting their emissions and thus were free to continue their use of fossil fuels.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Robin,

    That’s a vitally important clarification, which world leaders and policymakers would do well to understand. Just because the Guardian and others would like something to be true doesn’t make it so.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Mark:

    It happens a lot. Another example is the oft-repeated claim that developed countries promised to pay developing countries $100 billion per year from 2020. They made no such promise. It was supposed to have been made at COP15 (Copenhagen, 2009). But the relevant document (‘The Copenhagen Accord‘) was agreed by only five countries (the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa) of which only the US is a developed country: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. In any case, the Accord was not legally binding: COP15 delegates only ‘took note’ of it. It contains no information about where the $100 billion in funds would come from nor any agreement on how much individual countries would contribute to or benefit from such funds.

    And Hillary Clinton (then US Secretary of State) who proposed the plan was clear that funds will be available only if major developing countries such as China and India accepted binding and verifiable emission reduction commitments: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/17/17climatewire-hillary-clinton-pledges-100b-for-developing-96794.html.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Mark – from your link –

    “On Monday, a separate report from the Industrial Transition Accelerator estimated that of more than 700 low-carbon industrial installations in planning and development around the world, only 15 a year were gaining the finance necessary to go into full production. This represented a $1.6tn (£1.2tn) opportunity for investors, the group said.

    “To keep the 1.5C goal in reach, the world needs rapid reductions in coal, oil and gas investments, redirecting those resources towards an energy transition that prioritises equity and justice,” said Ghosh. “Governments must commit to expand renewables, phase out fossil fuels, manage energy demands and implement community-centred energy transitions.”

    Seems real world data/facts will not deter/make some rethink there unrealistic ambitions.

    Had a quick look at ITA website & as usual I could say a lot about them. Suffice to quote this –

    “Today’s pipeline of announced decarbonisation projects falls short of where we need to be by 2030. Source missionpossiblepartnership.org, April 2024″

    Like

  23. Simon Stiell, in the news again:

    “AI ‘carries risks’ but will help tackle global heating, says UN’s climate chief

    Simon Stiell insists it is vital governments regulate the technology to blunt its dangerous edges”

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/22/ai-carries-risks-but-will-help-tackle-global-heating-says-uns-climate-chief

    It’s mostly about AI and associated issues, but this paragraph makes me wonder if he’s on the same planet as the rest of us:

    …Stiell gave an upbeat assessment of the state of global climate action, saying the world was “aligning with the Paris agreement”, with renewable energy booming, and governments set to produce fresh commitments on cutting carbon.…

    Liked by 1 person

  26. “‘Science demands action’: world leaders and UN push climate agenda forward despite Trump’s attacks

    Leaders unveil new targets to cut planet-heating pollution after Trump called climate crisis a ‘con job’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/24/world-leaders-united-nations-climate-agenda

    What a misleading headline! Science doesn’t demand anything. World “leaders” do that.

    …A total of 120 countries and the European Union announced new goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York on Wednesday. The pledges most notably include one from China, the world’s leading emitter, which said it would cut emissions by 7-10% from its peak level by 2035.…

    Naturally I turned to the UN’s NDC Registry with a view to seeing what, precisely, the EU and China have offered. Imagine, then, my surprise when I viewed the Registry and found no sign of NDCs from either China or the EU. Maybe they’ll turn up before the end of the week.

    The countries that have belatedly filed NDCs since I wrote the article above, are (with annual percentage to global GHG emissions in brackets after each country’s name, based on information on the EDGAR database) Jamaica (0.02), Eswatini (0.01), Honduras (0.05), Tunisia (0.08), Nigeria (0.66), Jordan (0.07), Chile (0.22), Tonga (0), Mongolia (0.2), Vanuatu (0), Micronesia (Federated States of) (so insignificant they’re not on the EDGAR database), Pakistan (0.99), Liberia (0.01).

    By my reckoning, they represent another 2.31% of global emissions. Omitting the USA (which in view of Trump’s speech to the UN yesterday seems only fair), updated NDCs on the UN’s register still account for countries responsible for less than 1/8 of annual GHG emissions.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Now the BBC confirms the Guardian version of China’s climate “pledge”:

    “China makes landmark pledge to cut its climate emissions”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4y159190go

    China, the world’s biggest source of planet-warming gases, has for the first time committed to an absolute target to cut its emissions.…

    However, there is still no sign of an updated Chinese NDC appearing on the UN register. Has it filed an up-dated NDC at all, or are the Guardian and the BBC playing fast and loose with the facts? The BBC reports thus:

    …In a video statement to the UN in New York, President Xi Jinping said that China would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 7-10% by 2035, while “striving to do better”.…

    Is that nothing more than a video message, or does it underpin a revised NDC? We simply don’t know, thanks to remarkably vague reporting by both the BBC and the Guardian. I am going to be busy today, but over the next few days I will keep checking the NDC register on the UN website. If nothing has turned up by this time next week, I think it will be safe to assume that this is just the usual spin and biased reporting from those two organisations. On the other hand, if a revised Chinese NDC does make an appearance, I think that might be worth another Cliscep article. In the meantime:

    ...But some critics said China’s plan did not go as far as hoped to keep global climate goals in reach.

    “Even for those with tempered expectations, what’s presented today still falls short,” said Yao Zhe, global policy adviser at Greenpeace East Asia....

    …The original deadline for these new commitments – covering emissions cuts by 2035 – was back in February, but countries are now scrambling to present them by the end of September.…

    ...A 10% reduction in China’s emissions would equate to 1.4bn tonnes a year, which is nearly four times the UK’s total annual emissions.

    But China’s new target does fall short of what would be needed to meet international climate goals.

    “Anything less than 30% is definitely not aligned with 1.5 degrees,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

    Most scenarios to limit warming to 1.5C – or even well below 2C – would require China to make much greater cuts than that by 2035, he added.

    In many cases, that would mean more than a 50% reduction….

    Liked by 1 person

  28. “China’s plans to cut emissions too weak to stave off global catastrophe, say experts

    Xi suggested US is not rising to the climate challenge in his UN speech, but critics say new cuts fall ‘far short’ of what is necessary”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/24/chinas-plans-to-cut-emission-too-weak-to-stave-off-global-catastrophe-say-experts

    …China’s plans are to cut emissions by between 7% and 10% of their peak by 2035 – a long way from the 30% cut that experts said was feasible and necessary.…

    …But experts said China was failing to show leadership in its climate commitments. Kaysie Brown, associate director for climate diplomacy and governance at the E3G thinktank, said: “China’s 2035 target falls critically short of what is needed. It’s neither aligned with China’s economic decarbonisation, nor its own 2060 carbon neutrality goal.

    “Without stronger near-term ambition, China risks undermining its claim to upholding multilateralism and its clean economy leadership, and sending mixed signals to global markets.”…

    But some people are whistling in the dark to keep their (and others’) spirits up:

    …However, others noted privately that China had a longstanding habit of setting unambitious targets but then substantially exceeding them. “Underpromising and overdelivering is what we expect from China,” said one person involved with climate diplomacy.

    Bernice Lee, distinguished fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, said the business world and other governments would take their cue from China’s clear direction of travel, rather than the finer points of its plans.

    “There are UN targets, and then there’s reality,” she said. “The reality is the country invested $625bn in clean energy last year – 31% of the global total. Its clean energy surge is reshaping the global economy and displacing coal at home. My bet is that other countries will read the writing on the wall and recognise that China is fully committed, and be reassured as they seek to shift off fossil fuels.”...

    It does rather sound as though all that has happened so far is that Xi made a speech, and the updated NDC is still awaited:

    …China’s national plan, known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris agreement, will also contain measures to boost the share of non-fossil fuels to more than 30% of its energy consumption and to expand its wind and solar capacity to 3,600GW, more than six times 2020 levels.…[My emphasis].

    I suspect it’s significant that that was written in the future, not the present, tense.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. These people are deluded. The IPCC has said that, to achieve the 1.5ºC target, global (not just Chinese) emissions must come down to 18.7 Gt by 2030 (not 2035). China alone already emits 15.5 Gt and is set to increase that over the next few years. Global emissions are 53.2 Gt. There isn’t the remotest possibility of warming being limited to 1.5ºC.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Its clean energy surge is reshaping the global economy and displacing coal at home.

    According to OWID, China’s electricity production from coal has grown continuously and still accounts for 60% of the total. Renewables are at 31% from: hydro 13%; wind 10%; solar 8%. So, at best, renewables have slowed the growth in coal output a bit.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. No revised NDCs were filed yesterday at the UN Registry. Still no sign of anything from India, EU, or – despite BBC and Guardian publicity about Xi’s “pledges” – China.

    Like

  32. Still no sign of China’s updated NDC at the UN Registry. We do have updates from the following (with percentage GHG emissions, as supplied by EDGAR) noted in brackets:

    Sri Lanka (0.07)

    Colombia (0.41)

    Iceland (0.01)

    Tuvalu (so insignificant they don’t feature on EDGAR)

    Ethiopia (0.36)

    So that’s another 0.85% in total.

    Like

  33. Mark – from your quotes –

    “Bernice Lee, distinguished fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, said the business world and other governments would take their cue from China’s clear direction of travel, rather than the finer points of its plans.” & “My bet is that other countries will read the writing on the wall and recognise that China is fully committed, and be reassured as they seek to shift off fossil fuels.”

    Even if Bernice is a “distinguished fellow at the Chatham House thinktank” I think they need to be renamed as “Chatham House thinktank tanks”.

    What a ill informed quote, if true. Plus, I thought the UK was leading the way, ED will be pissed if China edge in front.

    Like

  34. Still no sign of the updated Chinese NDC being lodged at the UN registry, but the Russian Federation has lodged its updated version! If I can work out how to access a version in English, it might offer some fun.

    Like

Leave a comment

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