A comparison of the 30 countries that emit more than 0.5% of global greenhouse (GHG) emissions (see the European Commission’s emissions databasei) with the UN’s Nationally Determined Contributions Registryii reveals that 21 of them failed to register updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as required by Article 3 of the 2015 Paris Agreementiii, even after the deadline had been extended from February to September 2025. Yet these countries account for 57% of global emissions, while the 9 countries that did register an updated NDC account for just 25%. What’s more, with the United States (accounting for 11% of emissions) now withdrawing from the Paris Agreementiv, that figure falls to only 14%, leaving 71% of emissions effectively uncommitted. This undermines one of the raisons d’être of the ‘landmark’ Paris Agreement.
The Agreement was an attempt by the West and the UN to recover from the debacle of the UN’s fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen in 2009. It was a debacle because EU and US negotiators had hoped to persuade the big developing countries to accept the emission reduction obligations of developed countries. But they were humiliatingly defeated when developing countries refused to budge. This problem was reinforced as, in succeeding COPs, developing countries continued to insist they would not accept binding reduction commitments.
To break this deadlock, the UN proposed a completely new approach for COP21 to be held in Paris in 2015. The plan was that two key innovations would be introduced: (1) an aim to hold global average temperatures to ‘well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’; and (2) a methodology whereby countries would individually determine how they would reduce emissions augmented by a periodic review when each country’s reduction plans would be steadily scaled up; the so-called ‘ratcheting’ mechanism. These proposals were both agreed; and the Agreement, regarded as an important breakthrough, was widely praised.v
But both innovations have failed.
First, if the 2018 IPCC Special Report (para C1)vi got it right, there’s no possibility that the ‘well below 2ºC’ aim will be achieved. This is why: the Special Report recommended that, to limit ‘global warming to below 2°C’ – i.e. to achieve the Paris Agreement’s ‘well below 2ºC’ target (Article 2.1 (a)) – global emissions should ‘decline by about 25% from 2010 levels by 2030’. Therefore, as 2010’s global CO2 emissions were 34.0 Gigatonnes (Gt), they’d have to come down to about 25.5 Gt by 2030 to meet the target. But the world’s 8 largest emitters (China, the USA, India, Russia, Indonesia, Iran, Brazil and Saudi Arabia) together already emit more than 25.5 Gt (see Endnote 1) – and all are likely to increase (or at best stabilise) their emissions over the next five years. Therefore warming of at least 2ºC is a certainty. And that’s true even if every other country in the world reduces its emissions radically by 2030.
Moreover, as shown in the first paragraph above, the Paris Agreement’s ‘ratcheting’ mechanism – the other innovation – is clearly not working.
All this makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Paris Agreement has failed – and, without Paris, what hope remains for the UN’s climate change campaign?
Robin Guenier October 2025
Endnotes
i https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
iii https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
iv https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/
v https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344224160_Paris_Agreement
Climate Scepticism 
The whole thing is a ruinous globalist mafia stich-up, taking the general public for fools. It is obvious that the reason the UN IPCC published their 1.5°C Special Report in 2019 was because their prior 2°C target was too slow-burn for immediate weaponising, as it would take about 25 years (too long to wait) for a rise of 0.5°C according to their own CO2 global warming pseudoscience.
As for the UK Uniparty tyranny of imposing economy-wrecking unilateral Net Zero by 2050, official figures prove that Net Zero is a charade. The latest Statistical Review of World Energy gives the world’s dependency on indispensable fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) for its primary energy supplies as a showstopping 86.6%, still barely off the Net Zero start line. That dependency ratio and the extreme divergence between the world and UK trendlines of annual CO2 emissions prove conclusively that UK Net Zero is utterly pointless.
LikeLike
Doug: I think I was clear that the UK’s net zero policy is pointless in item 3 HERE.
LikeLike
Robin, at the start of para. 2 is it better to write to the effect that, “The Agreement was an attempt by Western governments, plus like-minded NGOs, and the UN …” in order to highlight, IIRC, the huge and continuing democratic deficit that these economy-destroying policies enjoy? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Thanks John. An interesting and valid observation, but I think I’ll leave it as it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was inspired by this piece to try to create a graphic that illustrated the challenge ahead for meeting the 2 degrees target on the UN’s terms.
Here, the square’s area represents the world’s total emissions of CO2 in 2024. The shaded area shows the emissions gap – the emissions that would have to be cut to fulfil the demand of a 25% cut on 2010 numbers by 2030. In other words, the brighter part of the square shows all the emissions the world would be allowed to emit in 2030. It’s mostly used up by three countries. There’s quite a way to go.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No updated NDCs have been filed at the UN Registry since Kyrgyzstan’s was filed 11 days ago. It looks as though the brief momentum from a few interested low-emissions countries has now dissipated. With exactly four weeks to go until COP30 starts it doesn’t look too promising for those who expect (despite everything, and despite all that has gone before) to see progress.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember the fact that CO2 has no effect on temperature.
LikeLike
Remember also that a trivial increase in a trace gas essential to all life of Earth is entirely beneficial.
Remember also that the trivial increase in global temperature (mainly increased minimum night-time temperatures at high latitudes) since the end of the Little Ice Age, has also been entirely beneficial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It appears that the UK’s Climate Change Committee accepts that the Paris Agreement is dead:
“Government told to prepare for 2C warming by 2050”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24kllyye1o
The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said.
The country was “not yet adapted” to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming, “let alone” what was expected to come, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) wrote in a letter addressed to the government.
The committee said they would advise that the UK prepare for climate change beyond the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement.… [My emphasis].
Yet, despite that injection of reality, the Committee remains completely delusional:
…They urged the government to set out a framework of “clear long-term objectives” to prevent further temperature rise, with new targets every five years and departments “clearly accountable” for delivering those goals.…[My emphasis].
Even if one accepts that humanity can affect the climate, everyone accepts that it’s up to the whole world to hit targets (hence the Paris Agreement), so why the Committee thinks any UK targets can prevent further temperature rise, especially when it implicitly accepts that Paris is dead, is a real conundrum. Having sensibly proposed a focus on adaptation, they still insist on futile mitigation attempts. Utter madness.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It sounds as though IRENA accepts that Paris is dead too:
“Record renewable energy growth falls short of climate goals
While a record 582 gigawatts of renewable energy was added to the grid in 2024, the international renewable energy agency IRENA said this was not enough to meet global climate targets.”
https://www.dw.com/en/record-renewable-energy-growth-falls-short-of-climate-goals/a-74357169
Meanwhile, Guterres seems increasingly like the shopkeeper in the Monty Python sketch, the only person who won’t acknowledge that the parrot is dead:
“Renewables are deployed faster and cheaper than fossil fuels — driving growth, jobs, and affordable power. But the window to keep the 1.5°C limit within reach is rapidly closing,” the UN chief was cited by the report as saying.
Closing, not closed, eh?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, re the CCC you seem to have forgotten that it’s up to us to set an example – to exercise leadership. As for Guterres, he’s been getting increasingly delusional for several years. Any suggestion that the 1.5ºC limit is ‘within reach’ is quite mad.
LikeLike
But according to this article in the Independent:
Paris Agreement working but too slowly to prevent dangerous global heat, scientists warn
Three extracts:
All delusional.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They’ve changed the goalposts again. 1.5C is out the window and now it’s 2C ‘at least’ – by 2050, not 2100 – and the ‘inevitable’ extreme weather impacts that such a warming would bring to the UK. And Betts of the Met makes a comeback as a ‘CCC adviser’:
‘Coincidentally’, a new report on extreme weather pseudoscience has been published by Otto, which Ben Pile reports on here.
The Zombie-Vampire Settled Science just keeps coming back. The only way to kill it is to drive a stake through its heart or cut off its head!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: Article 2 of the Paris Agreement is clear. The aim is to hold ‘the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’. In other words, the primary objective was 2ºC (well below) with 1.5ºC a desirable possibility. Target dates were not specified. In fact I don’t think either 2030 or 2050 are mentioned anywhere in the Agreement.
LikeLike
Agreed Robin, it was The Science in the form of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) combined with climate models which dictated the practical timescale for achieving the Paris climate goals. Basically, mitigation efforts were to be focused initially upon the first half of the 21st century in order to prevent an ‘overshoot’ occurring in the 2nd half, i.e. before 2100.
LikeLike
Jaime, the nearest the Agreement gets to saying that is another ‘aim’; this time it’s Article 4: ‘to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty‘. Of course, as with Article 3, an ‘aim’ is an aspiration not an obligation. And all the stuff about equity etc. makes it all quite meaningless anyway. Yet it’s this provision that leads on to the supposed need to update NDCs which almost everyone is ignoring. So Otto, Betts etc. can huff and puff about how dreadful it’s all going to be, but nobody is listening. Except perhaps in Britain where, however scary their pronouncements, the mad net zero policy – even if fully implemented – cannot make the slightest practical difference to global GHG emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The funny thing is that AR6 made a big thing of the promotion of the storyline approach to climate risk analysis, which constitutes a rejection of probabilistic approaches such as those proposed by Otto et al. One of the principal storyline guys, Theodore Shepherd, put it thus:
“Since epistemic uncertainty is deterministic and inherently subjective, it follows that there is no objective basis for a probabilistic approach, and no such thing as objective climate information.”
And yet, in AR6 there wasn’t the slightest hint of this fundamental, ideological schism existing between the D&A camp and the storylines camp. Now we hear that Otto will be the relevant lead author for AR7. Do we therefore think that AR7 will carefully explain that its return to emphasising the probabilistic approach constitutes a rejection of the rejection introduced in AR6, or will the good folk of the IPCC seriously try to maintain that storylines and probabilistic approaches are somehow compatible and complementary?
We hear a lot about the scrupulous, world-beating review process that underpins the IPCC reports, but from what I can see, it’s just a bun fight over who gets to use the keyboard.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Chris Morrison has just published an amusing piece in The Daily Sceptic:
100,000 Amazon Trees Chopped Down to Build Road for COP30 Climate Conference
But all is not lost, as CO2 is making the trees bigger
LikeLike
“Record leap in CO2 fuels fears of accelerating global heating
CO2 in air hit new high last year, with scientists concerned natural land and ocean carbon sinks are weakening”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/15/record-leap-in-co2-fuels-fears-of-accelerating-global-heating
Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere soared by a record amount in 2024 to hit another high, UN data shows, deepening the climate crisis that is already taking lives and livelihoods across the world.
Scientists are worried that the natural land and ocean “sinks” that remove CO2 from the air are weakening as a result of global heating, which could form a vicious circle and drive temperatures up even faster.
The global average concentration of the gas surged by 3.5 parts per million to 424ppm in 2024, the largest increase since modern measurements started in 1957, according to the report by the World Meteorological Organization.
Several factors contributed to the leap in CO2, including another year of unrelenting fossil fuel burning despite a pledge by the world’s countries in 2023 to “transition away” from coal, oil and gas….
LikeLike
Needless to say there was no such ‘pledge’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Record sea surface temperature jump in 2023–2024
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08674
Guess what happened next…
Record rise in carbon dioxide levels during 2024
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/10/1166110
Humans or nature?
LikeLike
Funny, this post is about end of Paris. Over on the “Court Again” post Mark gave a link to the latest “Rosebank oil field” 685dbd65fd8991b72499a38e131b822a6fde5438.pdf scope 3 submission July. Partial quote –
“Paris Agreement (2015)
2015 and joined by 195 Parties (194 States plus the European Union).
below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature
increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” International treaty to address climate change;
legally binding on all UNFCCC member governments.”
To say I’m confused as to whether it’s “Legally binding international treaty on climate change” is an understatement.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
This might assist (I hope:-)):
https://cliscep.com/2021/03/16/a-lot-of-hot-air/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – thanks for the link which I remember reading.
But it still seems some feel they have to at least pay lip service to it, like this partial quote from – 685dbd65fd8991b72499a38e131b822a6fde5438.pdf
“.5 Environmental Protection Objectives
This section outlines the key international and national climate policies and objectives that frame the Assessment of the Rosebank Development’s Scope 3 Emissions. At the international level, the Paris Agreement commits nearly 200 countries, including the UK, to limit global warming to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (modelled by the SSP’s referred to in section 1.4.6).
The UK has enshrined these ambitions in domestic law through the Climate Change Act 2008 (as
amended), which sets a legally binding target for Net Zero GHG emissions by 2050 and establishes a system of five-year carbon budgets to guide progress. The Assessment considers the Rosebank Development in the context of this policy landscape, considering not only the overarching goals but also sector-specific strategies such as the North Sea Transition Deal, which aims to reduce emissions from UK oil and gas production while supporting a managed transition.
The analysis recognises that, even in the most ambitious decarbonisation scenarios, there will be
ongoing demand for oil and gas for some time, both in the UK and globally. The Rosebank
Development is therefore evaluated in terms of its compatibility with these policies.”
Why would they say – “Paris Agreement commits nearly 200 countries, including the UK” & “The UK has enshrined these ambitions in domestic law through the Climate Change Act 2008 (as
amended), which sets a legally binding target for Net Zero GHG emissions by 2050″.
If they could have a stronger case by saying it’s not “Legally binding”?
ps – notice they state “the Climate Change Act 2008 (as amended). Can’t be bothered to read it, but assume it has been covered already.
LikeLike
Quelle tristesse! Morte de Paris.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No updated NDCs have been filled at the UN Registry since Kyrgyzstan’s on 2nd October. There is certainly no sign of an update from China, India or the EU. It seems reasonable to assert that Paris is dead, given that key players can no longer be bothered even to go through the motions.
LikeLike
“No major banks have yet committed to stop funding new oil, gas and coal, research finds
‘The objectives of the Paris agreement are slipping further out of reach,’ say researchers from LSE”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/22/no-major-banks-have-yet-committed-to-stop-funding-new-oil-gas-and-coal-research-finds
…Algirdas Brochard, banking project lead at TPI, said: “Given banks’ central role in the economy and their far-reaching influence on climate, their slow progress on the climate transition coupled with the recent dissolution of the Net Zero Banking Alliance suggest that the objectives of the Paris agreement are slipping further out of reach.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Global efforts not enough to curb temperature rise, UN says ahead of climate summit”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdrv8m5v4lo
The goal to keep the rise in temperatures under 1.5C is failing badly according to a UN review of nations’ carbon-cutting plans ahead of next week’s COP30 summit.
Only 64 countries have submitted new pledges to limit planet-warming gases this year, despite all being required to do so by now as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
While the UN review shows progress in curbing emissions over the next decade the projected fall is not enough to stop temperatures surging past global targets.
The report underlines the scale of the task facing world leaders who head to Belém in northern Brazil next week for the COP30 climate gathering.
Ten years after the Paris climate pact was agreed in 2015, the efforts of countries to restrict the rise in global temperatures are under renewed scrutiny.
Every signatory agreed to submit a new carbon-cutting plan every five years, which would cover the next decade.
But only 64 countries managed to put a new pledge in place this year, despite many extensions of the deadline. These represent around 30% of global emissions….
…One important factor is that the cuts assessed by the UN include the planned US pledge submitted under President Biden.
While President Donald Trump has said he will pull out of the Paris agreement, that process is not completed yet, so the UN are keeping the US plans in their calculations even if these won’t happen as planned.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
So 30% if they include US pledge under Biden, clutching at straws springs to mind.
LikeLike
“Carbon dioxide levels increase by record amount to new highs in 2024”
https://wmo.int/media/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-increase-record-amount-new-highs-2024
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere soared by a record amount to new highs in 2024, committing the planet to more long-term temperature increase, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).…
…Growth rates of CO2 have tripled since the 1960s, accelerating from an annual average increase of 0.8 ppm per year to 2.4 ppm per year in the decade from 2011 to 2020. From 2023 to 2024, the global average concentration of CO2 surged by 3.5 ppm, the largest increase since modern measurements started in 1957.….
It’s going well, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Utter rot, of course, but then, hey, there’s a COP starting. It can’t be admitted that they’re all a waste of time:
“Still a chance to return to 1.5C climate goal, researchers say
Report calls for scaling-up of renewable energy and electrification of key sectors to limit peak of global heating”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/05/still-a-chance-to-return-to-1-point-5c-climate-goal-researchers-say
…The Climate Analytics group of researchers say their roadmap could ensure warming peaks at 1.7C before 2050. They say that could be brought down to 1.5C by the end of the century by phasing out fossil fuels and using carbon removal technologies to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.…
…Neil Grant, a senior expert at Climate Analytics, said: “The last five years have cost us precious time in the critical decade of climate action. However, they have also seen a revolution in renewables and batteries, which have shattered records across the globe. Riding this tailwinds can help turbocharge our clean energy future and catch up on lost time.”
The Climate Analytics post can be found here:
https://climateanalytics.org/publications/rescuing-1-5c
...Overshooting 1.5°C does not mean we need change the Paris Agreement’s goals, but rather double down on their implementation. 1.5°C was chosen for good reason. Ten years on from Paris, the science is starker than ever – 1.5°C is planetary limit beyond which climate impacts escalate and risk triggering catastrophic tipping points.
Legally, morally and politically, the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit stands. It now acts as a North Star, guiding ambition and action for the world to avoid long-term overshoot of 1.5ºC and the catastrophic impacts this would entail.
Global energy and emissions pathways have been a critical line of evidence to help inform what highest possible ambition could entail. However, the 1.5°C-aligned pathways assessed in the most recent IPCC cycle (AR6) are becoming increasingly outdated. Since their creation five years ago, the world has failed to cut emissions, sending global temperatures racing towards the 1.5°C limit. On the other hand, in the last five years renewable energy and other zero-carbon technologies have decreased substantially in cost and are far more cost-competitive than anticipated and can be scaled up faster.
Our new Highest Possible Ambition scenario updates these pathways, starting from today’s emission levels (2025) and energy market dynamics to achieve the safest possible temperature outcome within physical, technological and economic feasibility limits. It provides an updated evidence base on how to achieve the Paris goal, starting from where we find ourselves in 2025.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting that our friends at The Conversation are saying that, far from being a failure, the Paris Agreement has made an important contribution to emission reduction. Here’s one example. An extract:
Here’s another – rather more optimistic than the first. An extract:
This seems to me to be utter nonsense. Am I wrong? There’s a lot I could say about it, but here’s a simple observation: if in the 6 years between 2009 and 2015, a period without UN ‘targets’ and government ‘pledges’, forecast emissions were reduced by 2ºC and in the 10 years between 2015, the year of the Paris Agreement, and today the forecast emissions were reduced by only 1.5ºC, surely that suggests that the Agreement has slowed the decline in emission reduction?
LikeLike
Robin,
Of course you are right and they are wrong. The statistics speak for themselves. But the true believers can’t admit that it’s all been in vain. That would hurt at so many levels – it would mean admitting that all the pain, the lost jobs, the trillions wasted, has been for nothing.
It would also involve acknowledging that going forward we should concentrate on adaptation and largely give up on mitigation. But if they admitted that, then what would they do? The gravy train would end, there would be no more COPs, and therefore no point in producing studies and articles encouraging the COP attendees to keep at it. If that happened, funding would dry up and they’d all be out of a job.
In short , turkeys don’t vote for an early Christmas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Amid squabbles, bombast and competing interests, what can Cop30 achieve?”
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/nov/09/amid-squabbles-bombast-and-competing-interests-what-can-cop30-achieve
…“The Paris agreement is our mandate; Belém is the test,” says Ban Ki-moon, who was UN secretary general at the time of the Paris summit. “In a fractured world, the Paris agreement remains the one pact that shows humanity can act as one – but it needs resuscitation through action, not rhetoric. Do this, and the Paris agreement becomes a living plan that protects people and strengthens economies. If we fall short, we risk placing both its promise – and the people it was written to protect – in jeopardy.”…
…At the time of writing, fewer than 90 countries had submitted their NDCs, though the official deadline passed in February, with China and the EU only giving an indication rather than submitting final plans.
Taken together, the NDCs received so far would achieve only a sixth of the emissions cuts needed to hold to the 1.5C goal, according to UN estimates.….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“COP30: Trump and many leaders are skipping it, so does the summit still have a point?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205jvyg3wjo
...Xi and Modi were no-shows, along with the leaders of around 160 other countries. And notably absent was the US President Donald Trump.
In fact, the Trump administration has exited the process entirely and has said it will not send any high-level officials this year.
Which raises the question, why have a two-week-long multinational gathering at all if so many leaders aren’t there?...
…So, with carbon dioxide emissions still rising even after 29 of these meetings – which are, after all, aimed at bringing them down – will more COPs make any difference?…
…Last month, a landmark deal that would have cut global shipping emissions was abandoned after the US, along with Saudi Arabia, succeeded in ending the talks.…
...The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, warned last month that Europe must not repeat what she termed the mistakes of the past and lose another strategic industry to China.
She called the loss of Europe’s solar manufacturing base to cheaper Chinese rivals “a cautionary tale we must not forget…
…Now, with these shifts in direction of global politics and priorities, Anna Aberg says she expects COP to become an annual forum for “holding to account” countries and other organisations, something she believes remains an “important role”.
The gathering in Brazil follows the acknowledgement by UN Secretary-General António Guterres that the 1.5°C target set in Paris will be breached – this, he has said, represents “deadly negligence” on the part of the world community….
...”I think we need one big COP every five years. And between that, I’m not sure what COP is for,” says Michael Liebreich, founder of energy consultancy Bloomberg New Energy Finance and host of a green energy podcast, Cleaning Up.
“You can’t just expect politicians to go and make more and more commitments. You need time for industries to develop and for things to happen. You need the real economy to catch up.”…
But of course:
…The UK’s Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband believes these meetings have delivered real progress by getting countries to engage with tackling climate change and enact policies that have made the renewable revolution possible.…
Even though:
Many now do, however, accept there is a strong argument for these international gatherings to be scaled down.
Ultimately, however, the real choice underlying it, for so many nations in attendance, simply comes down to the extent to which they align with a China-led clean energy revolution [sic] – or double down on the fossil fuels–first agenda….
Almost a hint of balance in that article. I don’t suppose it will last long, once the current furore about Panorama dies down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A repeat of my post just now on the COP30 thread:
With some difficulty and prompting by me ChatGPT has just now produced a list of leaders of countries emitting over 0.5% of global who attended the pre-COP leaders’ meeting at Belém (6–7 Nov 2025). There were only 6 from a possible 31. Their countries were Brazil, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and Mexico. Leaders did not attend from China, United States, India, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Türkiye, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Iraq, Egypt, South Africa, Argentina, Italy, Pakistan, Nigeria, Poland, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Taiwan. The latter 25 countries are the source of about 77% of global GHG emissions. Not perhaps the best start to the ‘implementation’ COP.
LikeLike
“World still on track for catastrophic 2.6C temperature rise, report finds”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/13/world-still-on-track-for-catastrophic-26c-temperature-rise-report-finds
Fossil fuel emissions have hit a record high while many nations have done too little to avert deadly global heating
The world is still on track for a catastrophic 2.6C increase in temperature as countries have not made sufficiently strong climate pledges, while emissions from fossil fuels have hit a record high, two major reports have found.
Despite their promises, governments’ new emission-cutting plans submitted for the Cop30 climate talks taking place in Brazil have done little to avert dangerous global heating for the fourth consecutive year, according to the Climate Action Tracker update.
The world is now anticipated to heat up by 2.6C above preindustrial times by the end of the century – the same temperature rise forecast last year.
This level of heating easily breaches the thresholds set out in the Paris climate pact….
LikeLike