Rising global temperatures may have
already molten frozen soil and caused methane gas to erupt from underground. More
giant craters have appeared in Siberian permafrost in Russia – a country that
believes it would
somewhat benefit from climate change! More climate unknown unknowns like this
would become known and fearful even before our state leaders make meaningful
pledges. On 12 November 2014, at the APEC Summit, many hailed the US-China
climate agreement as something “highly significant” and “adding impetus” into
the Paris negotiations later this year, but will it be the case? The US-China emissions-cutting
pledges have not changed much my views on the likely COP21 outcome when I was
commenting the EU’s
2030 package last year. It is because neither
the US’ nor China’s
pledges are ambitious enough while India refuses to follow their lead, worse
still, these so
called “pledges” are
not always the same thing by its name.
Xi Jinping commits China to ensuring emissions peak and producing 20% of its energy from low-carbon sources in 2030. The first-ever public pledge from the largest emitter applauded; however, it is unclear how terribly China will be emitting when 2030 is approaching. China will be emitting some 16 gigatonnes a year (if it keeps its current annual emissions growth rate of about 3% for the next 15 years), around 14 gigatones (if it makes some, not particularly great, efforts to meet its green energy target) or 9.7 gigatonnes (if Beijing implements ambitious climate policy) in 2030, according to the Climate Action Tracker and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In fact, to take the words of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China’s emissions will peak around 2025-2030 whatsoever (i.e. even without government intervention), given the economic trends that see slower rural-urban migration. As well, to give the world a “reasonable” chance of staying within the 2’C threshold and avoiding catastrophic climate change, climate scientist Kevin Anderson and the International Energy Agency had suggested respectively that China needed to peak emissions by 2025 and generate at least 26% of its energy from renewables by 2030. Therefore, China’s pledge is not as big a deal as it sounds. China can do more, say, by setting national, or regional emission caps for affluent cities like Beijing, Shanghai and coastal provinces.
Barack Obama pledges that the United
States would cut emissions by 28% by 2025 from 2005 levels. This is on top of
the pledges he made as part of his 2013 Climate Action Plan – to reduce
emissions by 17% by 2020, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. In fact, the level of
ambition of the US’s new pledge is roughly
the same as the previous one. Actually, both Obama’s old and new pledges mean the US would
emit approximately 5 gigatonnes in 2025 if we assume the country’s emissions
are cut in a linear manner, according to the Carbon Brief and Climate Action
Tracker. As the US’s annual carbon emissions have been nigh constant (and
declined slightly during the recession) at 6 gigatonnes over the last decade a
26-28% reduction by 2025 is not difficult at all. Whether Obama’s post-2020
plan to be published soon is more practical remains to be seen.
Domestic politics in the US is
indeed a big variable for the climate agreement in Paris. When Obama said “an
ambitions agreement that reflects ‘economic realities’ in the next decade and
beyond needs to be reached”, I suspect he was meaning to say “political
realities” instead. The US mid-term election last year resulted in a congress
controlled by the climate-sceptic Republicans. Majority Leader of the Senate,
Mitch McConnell, has vowed to roll back President Obama’s climate plan. With
the Presidential Election looming in November this year, Obama’s pledge could
be undone by his White House successor if Democrats lose. His tying US’s
pledges with China’s could only delay the country’s withdrawal from that
post-Kyoto treaty.
Climate Interactive Data reveals big
gaps between the 2050 global carbon budget recommended by scientists and that projected
on existing pledges. For +2°C threshold, it would be 20-24 gigatonnes. Taking
into account previous US and EU pledges, it would be 65-70 gigatonnes. The
US-China agreement would cut it to 56-58 gigatonnes. If other countries follow
US’ and China’s lead, it would be down to around 40
gigatonnes, which is still 50% higher than what scientists agree. Leading our
planet towards a
catastrophic +3°C
pathway, the US-China climate agreement is therefore more politically symbolic
than scientifically practical.
India is the fourth biggest emitter.
The words of Narendra Modi, India’s new prime minister, and his negotiators may
have slammed on the faces of many who unanimously believe the US-China
agreement is generating strong momentum by undercutting arguments
that countries should not take climate action before the world’s two largest
emitters. Modi used to call climate action a moral duty, now he tells students
“climate has not changed, we have changed.” Since he came into power, Modi has
dismantled a number of green policies to clear the way for new coal mines and
other industrial projects. He has also blocked funds to Greenpeace and other
environmental NGOs. Although all countries are required to submit their pledges
to the UNFCCC by the end of March, India declines to follow China’s emissions
pledge, and apparently, does not want to have a conversation about what the
country plans to do about climate change. New Delhi argues that developed
countries are responsible “not only for their own emissions, but also the
emission in developing countries for goods being used in rich nations”. As
India and China are at different stages of economic development, New
Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment even suggests that
India need not do anything until 2040 because its per-capita emissions in 2030
would still be less than 4 tonnes CO2e compared with 12 of the US and China. The latest
projection from the Energy Information Administration shows that India’s
emissions are due to rise by 60% in 2020-2040.
India’s way of thinking may be
inconsistent with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”
state leaders have agreed. Any country with per-capita emissions of more than 2
tonnes should join the global efforts to tackling climate change. Starting it earlier
means doing it easier over the long term. Also, what does this imply to the
other two members of BRIC countries – Brazil and Russia, or CIVETS countries
whose economies are emerging? Regardless of how many pledges made by other
countries, such mentality of individual emitters will block the road to a
successful climate agreement.
“Numbers” are just “numbers. Devil
lies in details of MRV efforts. A successful climate agreement also requires a
credible monitoring and penalty system. However, China has already rejected any
scrutiny measures, a key instrument the US says is necessary. Chinese
negotiators sought to delete provisions in a draft text that would have paved
the way for other countries and NGOs to submit questions about its
carbon-reduction plans, reported environmental groups attending the talks as
observers.
“Pledge” is not always a pledge,
especially for high per-capita emitters! In winter 2013, Japan announced it
would backtrack on its pledge to reduce its emissions cuts from 25% to
bewilderingly 3.8% by 2020 as it had to close its nuclear reactors after the
2011 earthquake and tsunami. Australia’s newly elected conservative government
is slashing its
targets and repealing domestic carbon laws. Canada has even withdrawn from the
Kyoto Protocol.
All these worrying
trends reinforce my early
prediction of the likely COP21 outcome that current pledges could well be the
ceiling. The “Paris Protocol” would just be a self-serving agreement among the
world’s largest polluters after a series of concessions to special interests. The
EU would renege on its own 2030 targets. The two possibilities are: (1) The
treaty would include “meaningful” targets but with a long list of safeguarding
conditions absolving responsibilities of countries that fail to deliver their
commitments; and (2) It would include “meaningless” or “hollow” targets with
some plausible monitoring and verification mechanisms.
Rather than wait for the apparent impossible, why don’t we count on
ourselves? We should make the most of our Internet connections to create or
support networks of scientists, watchdogs, advocates, policy specialists and
delivery experts to reduce carbon emissions. I believe it is these smart
digital projects out there which will save us from disastrous climate change at
the end of the day.
This article is cross-posted on CommentVisions.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment