China, which in a joint announcement late last year with the United States had committed to stop the annual rise in carbon pollution by 2030. But now the Chinese have gone further agreeing to intensity reductions of between 60 to 65% below 2005 levels per unit of gross domestic production. Of course if China more than doubles production intensity targets will not reduce overall greenhouse gas output.
Brazil’s leader, Dilma Rousseff, while visiting the White House, committed to increasing renewable energy to 20% of the country’s total energy capacity by 2030 and at the same time announced a goal to eliminate illegal deforestation by 2030 with the restoration of 12 million hectares (30 million acres) of rainforest.
South Korea announced an emissions target reduction of 37% from business-as-usual levels by 2030. Korea intends to purchase cap-and-trade carbon credits to offset its greenhouse gas emissions in anticipation that its emissions will double by 2030.
Iceland set its emissions reduction goal at 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Serbia set a 9.8% reduction goal over the same time period.
By December it is hoped that near 100% participation in carbon reduction targets will have been achieved. But environmentalists remain skeptical that the current targets will keep the planet’ atmosphere at or below the 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) target that the IPCC has concluded is a reasonable goal to minimize the worst impacts of atmospheric warming and ocean sea level rise.
Here are some of the pledges other countries have made to date:
Antigua and Barbuda – 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Australia – 5% below 2000 levels by 2020m 60% below 2000 by 2050.
Belarus – 5-10% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Bhutan – carbon neutral by 2020.
Canada – 30% below 2005 levels by 2020 not including oil sands emissions (expected to account for 14% of all emissions by 2020) which it hopes to offset by purchasing carbon credits.
Chile – 20% below 2007 levels by 2020.
Costa Rica – carbon neutral by 2021.
Dominican Republic – 25% below 2010 levels by 2030.
European Union (28 countries) – 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
India – 20-25% emission intensity reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 per unit of production with a commitment to produce 20% of electricity from renewables by that date.
Indonesia – 26% below business-as-usual emissions by 2020 with reduction of deforestation to a net sink by 2030.
Israel – 20% below business-as-usual emissions by 2020.
Japan – 26% below 2013 emission levels by 2030.
Kazakhstan – 15% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Maldives – carbon neutrality by 2020.
Marshall Islands – 40% below 2009 CO2 levels by 2020.
Mexico – 30% below business-as-usual emissions by 2020 and 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
New Zealand – 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Norway – 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, carbon neutral by 2030.
Papua New Guinea – carbon neutral by 2050.
Peru – zero net deforestation by 2021.
Russia – 15% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 50% below those levels by 2050.
Singapore – 7-11% below business-as-usual emissions by 2020.
South Africa – 34% below business-as-usual emissions by 2020.
Switzerland – 20 to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, carbon neutral by 2030.
Taiwan – 30% below business-as-usual by 2020.
Ukraine – 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 50% below those levels by 2050.
United Kingdom – 50% below 1990 levels by 2025.
United States – 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
Vietnam – 8% emission intensity reduction from 2010 by 2020.
To find the latest in country carbon reduction target commitments go to Climate Action Tracker on the web.
In beginning to research this subject I sought a climate change scorecard, a common measuring tool that could be used to rate country-by-country program successes. There are a few out there.
Climate Interactive
Climate Interactive has developed a Climate Scoreboard built on C-ROADS, a computer simulation that measures long-term impacts of climate policies. C-ROADS can measure policy initiatives potential outcomes. It features:
Nothing, however, on the Climate Interactive site provides a snapshot of how countries are currently doing.
CO2 Scorecard
The CO2 Scorecard, launched in 2010, tracks CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as energy production and consumption and other socioeconomic benchmarks. The goal is to bring together all publicly-available data from countries, corporations and other organizations and make it viewable online.
Climate Action Tracker
The Climate Action Tracker looks at country-by-country emission commitments and actions. An interactive map gives you an instant assessment by country. The co-authors of the tool describe themselves as independent scientists with no hidden agenda.
E7 versus G7 Countries and Carbon Intensity Reduction
I wondered if any or if all three were the basis for an article entitled, Emerging economies outpace G7 on tackling climate change. The article appeared in the Financial Times on September 7th. The author, Pilita Clark, wrote that emerging nations like China and India, defined as the E7, were outperforming the United States, Germany, Japan, the G7 nations, in reducing carbon intensity, a measure of CO2 emissions per dollar of gross domestic product.
In Clark’s article it states that the E7’s largest emerging economies including India and China, had reduced carbon intensity at an annual rate of 1.7%. The G7, on the other hand, had only managed a 0.2% reduction annually. The combination of E7 and G7 amounted to a 1.2% intensity reduction.
I hate carbon intensity as a reporting measure because it is based on units of production and not volume. In previous postings on this blog site I have railed against my government for using this as a measure of GHG mitigation success when clearly it is not. That’s because, when production volumes increase at rates faster than emission reductions by unit of production, as in the case of Western Canadian oil sands, overall emissions continue to rise.
Clark goes on to state that for carbon intensity to succeed actual reductions of 6% are needed if overall warming is kept to no more than 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) degrees. At 1.2% the likely scenario is a 4 Celsius (7.2 Fahrenheit) rise in planet-wide mean temperature by 2100.
Rating the U.S., China, Canada and Others
Having read Clark’s article I thought it would be useful to look at what the scorecards are saying about the E7 and G7 countries.
For example, how does the United States score for using the CO2 Scorecard?
Data from 2011 gives the U.S. a grade of “C” for carbon intensity reduction. The intensity reduction measure equaled -2.51%. At the same time the U.S. got a grade of “A” for CO2 trending which indicated a -2.13% reduction in carbon footprint. But as for the overall grade, the U.S. got a “D-” as one of the top 10 global carbon emitters.
How did China do using the CO2 Scorecard?
A “C” for CO2 trends with a 4.74% increase in carbon footprint. A “D” for carbon intensity even though reductions measured -4.49%. That’s because the intensity reduction benefits were negated by overall production volume increases leading to a score of “D-” for overall carbon footprint.
How did my country rate on the CO2 Scorecard?
Canada got a “C” for CO2 footprint which worsened by 0.69% although carbon intensity improved by -1.55%. Overall final score, a “D-.”
Climate Action Tracker uses a different rating scale that goes from “Inadequate” to “Role Model.” Based on this scale the United States as of 2013 is scored “Inadequate.” In 2005 the U.S. pledged to reduce overall GHG emissions by 17% in 2020. Climate Action Tracker predicts, that without additional mitigation policy and strategies, the country will not come close to its target carbon footprint reduction.
China also is graded “Inadequate.” China has pledged to reduce GHG emissions from 2005 to 2020 by 40 to 45% and “will be close to sufficient” in meeting that pledge based on current trends.
And Canada joins the other two with an “Inadequate” grade. The country committed to align its reductions with the U.S. at 17% from 2005 to 2020 and “with current policies in place…is not on track to meet their pledge.” In fact Canada is expected to increase its GHG emissions overall by 3.3% by 2020 based on current policy and trends.
So who is scored as a “Role Model?” The Maldive Islands. This small Indian Ocean country will be carbon neutral by 2020 based on the governments unconditional declaration. Other countries doing better than the U.S., China and Canada include Costa Rica, Norway, South Korea, Bhutan and Papua New Guinea who get a “Sufficient” grade. And Climate Action Tracker gives a “Medium” score, their third highest rating to Brazil, Chile, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, Switzerland and Singapore. Everyone else gets the failing grade of “Inadequate.”
So as the leaders of countries gather in New York City next week, we hope with scorecards in hand, they know the task at hand. They must do better because right now overall the road to tackling climate change appears very rough indeed.
