Technical ReportPDF Available

The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges

Authors:

Abstract

The document presents an assessment of NDCs presented by national governments to the Paris Accord. The NDCs are compard on a same metric and classified into 4 categories. The different national responsabilities are highlighted through the per capita national emissions
Authors
Sir Robert Watson (United Kingdom), former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), World Bank’s Chief Scientist for Sustainable
Development and a White House Senior Adviser.
Dr. James J . McCarthy (United States), former Co-Chair of the IPCC Working Group II. He is Professor of Oceanography at
Harvard University. He served as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and as Chair of the
Board of Directors for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He is the winner of the 2018 Tyler Prize for Environmental
Achievement.
Dr. Pablo Canziani (Argentina), former Lead Author of the IPCC Working Group I and chapter author of UNEP/WMO
Quadrennial Ozone Assessments. He is a Senior Scientist at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council and Professor
at the National Technological University in Argentina. He is Co-founder and a Member of UNESCO’s Regional Center for Climate
Change and Decision-Making in Latin America and Academic of the Argentine Academy of Environmental Sciences.
Prof. Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic (Austria), Convening Lead Author of the IPCC Working Group III, Convening Lead Author of the
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Deputy Director General of IIASA and tenured Professor of Energy Economics at Vienna
University of Technology (TU Wien). He was a Member of the United Nations Secretary General High-Level Technical Group and
the Co-chair of the Global Carbon Project.
Liliana Hisas (Argentina), Executive Director of the Universal Ecological Fund and coordinator of the project Acting on Climate
Together.
Acknowledgements
We extend our gratitude to Marshall Hoffman, President of FEU-US and Gabriel Juricich, President of FEU Argentina for their
guidance and support throughout the process of producing this report.
ISBN: 978-0-9831909-3-6
November, 2019
This report aims a t providing acc essible information on climate change. It is based on available publications from various sources. All s ources
utilized are quote d and listed in t he references. FEU-US and the author s are not responsible for the content of any of these sources.
This report may be r eproduced in whole or in part and in any f orm for informational, educational or non-profit services, provided
acknowledgement of the source is made. FEU-US would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever.
About FEU-US
The Universal Ecological Fund (Fundación Ecológica Universal FEU-US), a non-profit non-governmental organization, seeks to increase
awareness that encourages actions through researching, analyzing, producing and disseminating information. It was incorporat ed under the
laws of the District of Columbia, United States of America, in 2005. FEU-US shares its goal, values and obj ectives with its partner organization,
Fundación Ecológica Universal (FEU), founded in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1990.
E-mail: info@feu-us.org
i
The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges
Key Conclusions
An environmental and economic disaster from human-induced climate change is on the horizon.
To achieve the Paris Agreement’s most ambitious goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C (2.7°F)
above pre-industrial levels requires reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 percent by
2030.
An analysis of current commitments to reduce emissions between 2020 and 2030 shows that 75 percent
of the climate pledges are partially or totally insufficient to contribute to reducing GHG emissions by 50
percent by 2030, and some of these pledges are unlikely to be achieved.
Of the 184 climate pledges, 36 were deemed sufficient (19 percent), 12 partially sufficient (6 percent), 8
partially insufficient (10 percent) and 128 insufficient (65 percent).
Because the climate pledges are voluntary, technicalities, loopholes and conditions continue to
postpone decisive global action to reduce emissions and address climate change.
All countries need to reduce emissions to meet the Paris Agreement targets, although not all countries
have equal responsibility because of the principle of differentiated responsibility, historical emissions,
current per person emissions and the need to develop.
Emissions from the top four emitters combined account for 56 percent of global GHG emissions China
(26.8 percent), the United States (13.1 percent), the European Union and its 28 Member States (9
percent) and India (7 percent). The analysis of their pledges show that:
China, the largest emitter, is expected to meet its pledge of “reducing its carbon intensity by 60-65
percent from 2005 levels by 2030” (or the amount of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP).
However, China’s CO2 emissions increased by 80 percent between 2005 and 2018 and are expected
to continue to increase for the next decade given its projected rate of economic growth.
In 2015 the United States committed to reducing GHG emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels
by 2025. However, the current administration announced the United States withdrawal from the
Paris Agreement and has cut federal regulations meant to curb emissions. State and local efforts are
being implemented to try and meet the United States pledge. These efforts are mainly focused on
electricity generation and automobile emissions.
The European Union and its 28 Member States committed to reduce GHG emissions at least 40
percent from 1990 levelby 2030. The EU and its Member States are on track to cut GHG emissions
by 58 percent by 2030.
India’s emissions are growing rapidly. Its pledge to reduce “the emissions intensity (of all GHGs) of
its GDP by 30-35 percent from 2005 level by 2030” is expected be met.
However, India’s GHG emissions increased by about 76 percent between 2005 and 2017 and, like
China, are expected to continue to increase until 2030 due to economic growth.
ii
The Russian Federation, the fifth largest GHG emitter, has not even submitted its plan to cut emissions
yet.
From the remaining 152 pledges, 126 are partially or totally dependent on international finance,
technology and capacity building for their implementation. A portion of these commitments may not be
implemented because little international support has been materialized.
Thus, at least 130 nations, including 4 of the top 5 world’s largest emitters, are falling far short of
contributing to meeting the 50 percent global emission reductions required by 2030 to limit the global
temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The impact of the shortfall are economic losses from weather events influenced by human-induced
climate change escalating to at least $2 billion per day by 2030. In addition to the cost, weather events
and patterns will continue to change, and will adversely affect human health, livelihoods, food, water,
biodiversity and economic growth.
There are two ways in which emissions can be rapidly and drastically reduced, particularly carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions which account for about 70 percent of global GHG emissions due to fossil fuels:
Switching electricity generation to renewables sources and away from coal. This means a five-fold
increase in wind and solar energy as well as phasing out and closing 2,400 coal-fired power stations
globally within the next decade, to reduce coal use by 70 percent by 2030. This is viable and cost-
effective. Yet, there are 250 additional coal units under construction.
Improving and increasing energy efficiency can reduce CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2040
something we can all contribute to. Households worldwide could also save more than $500 billion
dollars per year in energy bills (electricity, natural gas for heating and cooking and fuel for
transportation).
Efforts must also be made to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide from land-use change, primarily
deforestation in the tropics, and emissions from other GHGs, primarily methane and nitrous oxide.
Leadership is required to limit climate change and meet the Paris Agreement targets:
Leadership from governments to make meaningful progress towards the Paris Agreement targets.
Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6oF) or 1.5°C (2.7oF) above
pre-industrial levels will require Governments to double or triple their current pledges within the next
decade by transitioning to a low-carbon economy, reducing deforestation, and reducing emissions of
other GHGs. Policy can accelerate the implementation of climate solutions.
Leadership from the private sector to do business sustainably and to drive innovation, competitiveness,
risk management and growth. Investments from the private sector have the potential to drive policy
changes.
Leadership from individuals to continue demanding increased climate action as well as to make smarter
choices in using energy more efficiently every day. Young people are leading a global mobilization
demanding political action to address climate change. These young climate advocates can lead and
mobilize individuals to take climate action as well.
iii
About this Report
The climate pledges under the Paris Agreement represent the first collective effort by all countries to address climate
change –the single biggest global threat to our way of life, as well as a major risk to our global environment and the loss
of biodiversity.
To achieve the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C (3.6° F) above pre-
industrial levels requires reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally by 50 percent by 2030.
This report presents a different approach to the analysis of the climate pledges. It ranks the countries’ commitment to
reducing GHG emissions and identifies weaknesses in the voluntary pledges.
It focuses on both the adequacy of the pledges to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally by 50
percent by 2030, and whether these pledges are likely to be implemented.
The analysis of the climate pledges addresses the top four emitters, which combined account for more than half of global
GHG emissions, as well as on the remaining 152 pledges and those countries that have not yet submitted their pledges.
All countries need to reduce their GHG emissions in the next decade to meet the Paris Agreement targets. This analysis
acknowledges the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, embedded in the Climate Change Convention,
but does not try to address it. The analysis also recognizes that historical emissions and current emissions per person
vary widely, and that many developing countries lack the financial capability to reduce emissions, as well as the
technological and institutional capacity.
Data from various sources other than solely the pledges were used, such as the official reports from the countries to the
Climate Change Convention (e.g.: Biennial Update Reports and National Communications) and global datasets from the
International Energy Agency, the Global Carbon Project, the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research
European Commission Joint Research Center and the Global Energy Monitor’s Global Coal Plant Tracker.
Comprehensive analysis of the climate pledges has been done by climate scientists and scientific organizations, including
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap
Reports. These assessments share a common conclusion –the initial commitments by governments are an important first
step, but will not be enough to reduce global emissions within the next decade, and thus, halt the increase in global
temperature which is driving the climate to change.
However, not much has changed yet.
Global emissions are still increasing. As a result, climate change is happening much faster than our efforts to address it.
It is our intention that the information in this report add to the knowledge base and promote an outcry for increased
climate action from citizens globally and spark climate leadership from governments, business leaders as well as from
individuals.
November, 2019
1
The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges
You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States
The Paris Agreement represents the first collective effort by all countries to address climate change.
It is an historic turning point in the global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For the first
time, the United States, India, China and the European Union and its Member States were all at the
table, influencing other nations to join the effort.
The Paris Agreement could have been stronger. Some nations wanted a treaty. Others wanted an
agreement. Some nations lobbied for longer interval between reviews of performance in meeting
national commitments. Other nations wanted less intrusive verification procedures.
Even though imperfect, the Paris Agreement solidly positioned the community of nations to recognize
that each could and would contribute in an evolving way to the reduction of emissions to slow the rate
of global warming.
The pledges made by all countries are focused on achieving the Paris Agreement goal of holding ‘the
increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6oF) above pre-industrial levels and to
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C (2.7oF) above pre-industrial levels1.
Keeping global warming to well below 2oC (3.6oF) above pre-industrial times, or even 1.5oC (2.7oF), can
only be achieved by significantly and rapidly reducing emissions. About 70 percent of global
anthropogenic GHG emissions are from carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel2. These CO2 emissions are
primarily driving the observed changes in the climate. Deforestation and other GHGs also contribute to
changing the climate3.
Global average temperature has already warmed by about 1°C (1.8oF), above pre-industrial levels, and
could exceed the goal of the Paris Agreement of limiting the increase to 1.5oC (2.7oF) as early as 2030 if
global warming continues to increase at the current rate4.
But global warming continues to accelerate –global CO2 emissions are still on the rise, reaching yet
another peak in 2017, and are anticipated to continue to increase5.
To halt the trend in increasing global emissions, and thus in global temperature increase, 195 parties to
the Climate Change Convention have signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, and 187 parties have ratified
it6. As of October 1st 2019, 184 parties to the Climate Change Convention have submitted their climate
pledges. After the ratification of the Paris Agreement, the climate pledges were re-submitted, changing
their initial denomination from ‘Intended’ to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
1 Paris Agreement, Article 2 (2015)
2 UNEP (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018, Global Carbon Atlas, Emission Databas e for Global Atmosp heric Research
3 Other GHGs are methane and nitrous oxide
4 Universal Ecological Fund: The Truth Abo ut Climate C hange (2016), IPCC: Special Report on Global Warmi ng of 1.5°C (201 8)
5 Global Carbon Project, 2018
6 Status of ratification of the Paris Agreement
2
The climate pledges, even if fully implemented, will only cover less than half of the emission reductions
needed to limit global temperature increase to 1.5oC by 20307.
Global GHG emissions have increased by about 20 percent in the last decade from 44.7 GtCO2-eq
(gigatons of all GHGs combined expressed as CO2 equivalent) in 2010 to 53.5 GtCO2-eq in 20178. Even if
all climate pledges are fully implemented, global GHG emissions are projected to be, on average, 54 (50-
58) GtCO2-eq in 20309.
Halting the increase of global GHG emissions and keeping them at the current level in 2030 may seem
encouraging to some. It is just a first step. But to stay below 1.5oC (2.7oF), global GHG emissions should
be, on average, 27 (25-30) GtCO2-eq in 203010.
This means that action to half emissions within the next decade need to at least double or triple and
increase by five-fold to reach net zero emissions by 2050.The sooner decisive measures to reduce
emissions are implemented, the most cost-effective these actions will be.
Without massive changes and active leadership in the very near future, we could be living in a 1.5oC
world in about a decade.
The Climate Pledges
When the Climate Change Convention was adopted, countries were categorized into industrialized and
developing (or Annex I and Non-Annex I countries).
This 1992 categorization is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which
establishes that all countries are responsible for addressing global environmental degradation yet not
equally responsible. This key principle acknowledges the different capabilities and differing
responsibilities of individual countries in addressing climate change.
More than 20 years ago, industrialized countries accounted for about half of global GHG emissions.
Based on the historical share of GHG emissions, only industrialized countries had to comply with
emission reduction targets 11.
Currently, the share of global GHG emissions has changed. Upper and lower middle-income countries
currently account collectively for more than half of global GHG emissions12.
When the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, all countries made pledges to reduce emissions.
The emission reduction commitments stated in the 184 climate pledges are voluntary and not legally
binding. These commitments depend on policies, technologies and practices to be adopted and
implemented at the national level in each country. For some countries, the implementation of the
7 IPCC: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018)
8 Emission Dat abase for Globa l Atmospheri c Research, UNEP (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018
9 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC (2018)
10 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC (2018)
11 Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries committed to emission reductions: 5% below 1990 level between 2008-2012 and 18% below 1990 level
between 2013-2020
12 IPCC, Fifth A ssessment Report (AR5), Working Group III, Chapte r 1 (2014)
3
pledges also depends on the provision of international financial or technical support, referred to as
conditional pledges.
Of the 184 pledges, 127 (including India) or 69 percent are partially or totally conditional. This means
that without international finance or technical support, these pledges may not be implemented.
These conditional pledges were mostly put forward by developing countries that lack the financial
capability to reduce emissions as well as the technological and institutional capacity.
The conditionality of these climate pledges is based on the categorization of countries under the Climate
Change Convention. However, in their latest assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has updated the categorization of countries, based on their income. Thus, some countries
which are currently categorized as high-income economies13 are still considered as developing countries
for the Convention.
Based on the difference in the categorization of countries between the Convention and the IPCC, some
high-income countries have put forward conditional pledges that depend on international funding for its
implementation.
Reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030 will require a significant transformation in the way all
countries generate and use energy. Some countries will need international funding to implement the
required actions to change their energy generation and use in the framework of sustainable growth.
The ratification of the Paris Agreement could have been an opportunity for countries to review and
increase actions to reduce emissions. However, 97 percent of the 184 climate pledges are the same as
those initially submitted in 2015-2016, after the Paris Agreement was adopted. Compared to the
intended commitments submitted in 2015-16, only six countries have reviewed their pledges: 4
countries increased their plan to cut emissions; 2 countries weakened their commitments:
1. Argentinaa 20 percent increase in ambition: from a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions, to
37 percent; about half of this pledge is conditional.
2. Moroccoa 30 percent increase in ambition: from a 32 percent reduction in GHG emissions to
42 percent; about 60 percent of this pledge is conditional.
3. Ecuadorrevision of the target year and emission reduction target: from 30-46 percent
reduction of CO2 emissions by 2030, to 20.9 percent by 2025; almost 60 percent of this pledge is
conditional.
4. Marshall Islands (submission of their second climate pledge) increase in ambition by including
‘at least’ to 32 percent reduction of GHG emissions by 2025 and a 45 percent by 2030. Adding
‘at least’ is consistent with the intention to overachieve the 2025 target and to try to achieve
the 2030 indicative target; 100 percent of this pledge is conditional.
5. Eritrea a 50 percent decrease in ambition: from 80 percent of CO2 emissions to 38.5 percent;
about 70 percent of this pledge is conditional.
13 The 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) analyzed global GHG emi ssions categori zing countries based on their inc ome, into high-income, upper-middle
income, l ower-middle incom e and low-inco me countries. This categorization is base d on the World Bank’s categorization of countri es by income:
https://datah elpdesk.worldba nk.org/knowledgebase/articl es/906519-w orld-bank-country-and-l ending-groups
4
6. Benina 25 percent decrease in ambition: from 21.4 percent reduction in GHG emissions to 16
percent; more than 75 percent of this pledge is conditional.
Ranking the Climate Pledges
The climate pledges are voluntary and use different metrics. Not all climate pledges actually commit to
reducing emissions between 2020 and 2030. Thus, the 184 climate pledges were categorized based on
their emission reduction commitments into:
Sufficient
Climate pledges with commitments equal or above 40% emission reductions.
These pledges are broadly in line with the need to at least half emissions by
2030.
Partially
sufficient
Climate pledges with commitments between 20-40% emission reductions. The
countries under this category need to do much better to reduce emissions.
Partially
insufficient
Based on two criteria:
1. Pledges below 20% emission reductions show some, but insufficient,
ambition to address climate change.
2. Pledges with conditional commitments where the country is implementing
more than 50% of the pledge from their own resources (or 50%
conditional). It shows some effort from the country to reduce emissions.
Insufficient
Based on four criteria:
1. Pledges with no emission reduction targets, which cannot be quantified
or measured.
2. Pledges with commitments that rely more than 50% on international
financial support show minimal effort from the country to reduce
emissions.
3. Pledges with intensity targets. These commitments focus on emissions
per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This metric is measured in CO2
or GHG emissions per $1000 dollar GDP. These pledges mostly equal an
increase in emissions until 2030 above the current level due to economic
growth outstripping the rate of decrease in carbon/GHG intensity.
4. Pledges using business as usual (BAU) targets. These pledges are based
on emission reductions below a projected level of future emissions in
2030 if no actions or policies are implemented. These commitments
mostly equal an increase in emission in 2030 above the latest level of
emissions reported by each country.
The result of this categorization is that 25 percent of the 184 climate pledges are partially or totally
sufficient and 75 percent are totally or partially insufficient to reduce global emissions by 50 percent by
2030 (Figure 1).
5
The emission reduction commitments stated in
the 184 climate pledges under each category are
detailed in the Annex.
The need to at least double or triple the efforts to
reduce emissions require a closer analysis of the
pledges from the top emitters China, the United
States, the European Union (and its 28 Member
States) and India. Emissions from these countries
combined account for 56 percent of global GHG
emissions, and 60 percent of global CO2
emissions14 (Figure 2).
14 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018, Global Carbon Project
6
China
China is the second largest economy in the world. From 1990 to 2010, the average Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) growth rate has been 10 percent a year. Since 2010, the GDP growth rate has slightly
declined, to an annual average of 8 percent. This is four times more than the GDP growth rates of the
United States and the European Union.
Because China’s emissions are linked to its economic growth, China has become the largest emitter of
GHGs and CO2 in the world, currently accounting for about 27 and 29 percent respectively15. However,
historically China’s emissions were much lower than most industrialized countries. Since 1990 and due
to the rapid expansion of China’s economy, its carbon emissions per person have increased fourfold,
reaching 8 tons of CO2 per person a year in 2018. However, this is still less than half of a person’s
emissions in the United States or Canada, but more than a person’s emissions in the United Kingdom
and France16.
China made an unconditional climate pledge that includes four targets:
1) To reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent from 2005 level.
In their pledge, China states that CO2 emissions per unit of GDP have been lowered by 33.8 percent from
2005 level in 2014. Using two datasets 17, the decrease is between 26.2 and 27.1 percent reduction in
China’s carbon intensity from 2005 to 2014. A reason for this discrepancy may be that the unit used for
this calculation is not specified in China’s pledge. Despite this systemic difference, China has reduced its
carbon intensity since 2005. China may reach their carbon intensity target of 60-65 percent reduction
before 2030.
However, China’s CO2 emissions have increased by 80 percent from 6.3 GtCO2 in 2005 to 11.3 GtCO2 in
201818.
China’s pledge is indeed encouraging, but it will not result in a decrease in CO2 emissions below current
levels. Thus, China’s pledge was deemed insufficient to contribute to reducing global emissions by 50
percent by 2030.
2) To peak CO2 emissions around 2030, making best efforts to peak earlier.
China’s pledge is to reduce its carbon intensity, but this reduction will not stop the increasing trend in
CO2 emissions for at least one more decade. In fact, China’s emissions are expected to increase until
2030 due its projected rate of economic growth.
3) To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 percent.
More than 85 percent of the primary energy in China is currently produced by fossil fuels. Coal accounts
for 60 percent of the total primary energy generation. In 2017, non-fossil sources accounted for 14
percent of China’s primary energy 2 percent nuclear, 8 percent hydroelectric and 4 percent
15 UNEP, The Emission Gap Report 2018, Global Carbon Project 2018
16 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of al l world countries - 2019 Report, Publications Office of the European Union; Global Carbon Atlas, CO2 emission s per person
17 International Ene rgy Agency; Emission Database for Gl obal Atmospheric Researc h
18 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of all world countries, 2019 R eport, Publications Offi ce of the European Union
7
renewables19. In addition to producing and providing renewable technology for most of the world,
China’s domestic use of renewables has significantly increased, by more than six-fold since 2010. This
trend is continuing, with a 30 percent increase of wind and solar power in 201720.
The target of increasing the share of non-fossil energy to 20 percent could be reached by 2030 by
continuing to increase renewables at the current rate, without additional efforts. However, the
expansion of renewables cannot compensate the lack of action to reduce China’s coal consumption and,
thus, increasing CO2 emissions.
4) To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters from 2005 levels
In their pledge, China states that by 2014 the forest stock volume had increased by 2.188 billion cubic
meters compared to 2005 levels or about half of the pledge’s target. The forested area surface has
been increased by 21.6 million hectares. This surface is comparable to about half of the surface of
California or about a third of France. Such increase in the forest stock volume would store about two
percent of China’s current CO2 emissions (about 200 MtCO2 per year). An additional two-fold increase in
the forest stock volume by 2030 means that China would store about four percent of current CO2
emissions.
United States
The United States is the largest economy in the world, with an average GDP growth rate of two percent
a year since 2000. It is the second largest GHGs and CO2 emitter in the world, accounting for about 13
and 14 percent respectively21. Historically the United States has been the largest emitter in the world.
Its CO2 emissions per person are among the highest globally, despite the transition from a
manufacturing-based to a service-driven economy. The current carbon emissions per person are 16 tons
of CO2 per year. That means that every person in the United States emits double what a person in
Malaysia, or four times what a person in Mexico does22.
In 2015, and for the first time, the United States committed to reducing GHG emissions by 26-28
percent from 2005 levels by 2025. In 2017, however, the current administration announced the United
States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement23. In addition, key federal regulations that would enable
the United States to meet its pledge have been recently suspended, revised or rescinded.
Most importantly, the Clean Power Plan has been repealed. It set the first-ever carbon pollution
standards for power plants in the United States, giving States flexible, cost-effective tools to cut CO2
emissions from coal-fired plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
While the original pledge would have been deemed partially sufficient to assist in reducing global
emissions by 50 percent by 2030, because of the reversal in federal policy since 2017, the United States’
pledge was deemed insufficient.
19 BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2019
20 Fossil CO2 emissi ons of all world countrie s, 2018 Report
21 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018, Global Carbon Project
22 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of al l world countries - 2019 Report, Publications Office of the European Union; Global C arbon Atlas, CO2 emissions per per son
23 Due to a provision in the Paris Agreem ent, the earliest date f or the U.S. to co mpletely wit hdraw from the agreement i s November 4, 2020. Until then, the U.S.
climate pledge stands.
8
Offsetting the reversal in federal policy, states across the U.S. are leading the renewable energy
transition. For example, Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas are generating about than 30 percent of their
electricity from wind; California, Hawaii and Vermont are generating about 10 percent from solar24.
Cities are also transitioning to renewable sources of energy. More than 130 cities committed to 100
percent renewable electricity, and six small cities have already achieved the target Aspen, CO
(population: 7,500); Burlington, VT (population: 42,000); Georgetown, TX (population: 50,000);
Greensburg, KS (population: 778); Rock Port, MO (population: 1,200) and Kodiak Island, AK (population:
6,000)25.
Some of these commitments are being implemented under the America’s Pledge initiative26. The
analysis of these commitments estimates that the United States could reduce emissions by 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 202527. In addition, other initiatives and campaigns are focused on retiring coal-
fired power plants. More than half of the 530 coal-fired power plants in the United States have been
retired or are proposed to be retired by 203028.
These State and local initiatives and campaigns are indeed critical steps in the right direction.
In addition, almost half of the States have also been implementing fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions
standards for cars and light trucks. These fuel efficiency standards would have almost doubled the fuel
economy of passenger vehicles by 2025 while saving families and businesses nearly $2 trillion over the
lives of vehicles. New and amended nationwide standards have been recently proposed for vehicles
model year 2021 to 2026. Most importantly, the proposed amended standards would further increase
emissions from the transportation sector, currently accounting for the majority of CO2 emissions, with
almost 40 percent29.
For the last two decades, the U.S. has been and still is producing 80 percent of its energy (for electricity,
heating and transportation) from fossil fuels.
Until the share of fossil fuel use in the United States energy mix is significantly reduced, State and local
efforts will not compensate for the lack of decisive federal action to reduce emissions.
European Union
Including some of the richest economies in the world, the European Union (28 nations) is the third
largest GHGs and CO2 emitter in the world, accounting for nine and ten percent respectively30.
While sustaining its economic growth, at an annual average GDP growth rate of two percent, the EU has
already reduced its GHG emissions in 2017 by about 17 percent from 1990 levels31. CO2 emissions
decreased by about 22 percent compared to 1990 in 2018. Some European Union Member States,
however, are still dependent on fossil fuels for their electricity and heat generation.
24 Clean Edge, Inc.: 2017 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index: State Index
25 https://www.sierraclub.org/r eady-for-100/commitments
26 America’s Pledge is an initiative led by former mayor Michael Bloomberg and former governor Jerry Brown, uniting commitments made by 17 states, more than
450 cities, businesse s and academic institutions: www.americaspledgeoncl imate.com
27 America’s Pledge Initiative on Climate (2018) “Fulfilling America’s Pledge: How States, Cities, and Business Are Leading the United States to a Low-Carbon Fut ure.”
28 https://content.sierraclub.org/coal/coal-plant-map
29 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissi ons and Sinks (2019 )
30 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018, Global Carbon Project
31 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018, Emission Database for Global Atmospheri c Research, based on the EU commitments under the Kyoto Prot ocol and its
Cancun pledge
9
The largest CO2 contributors within the European Union in 2018 were Germany (22 percent), the United
Kingdom (10.7 percent), Italy (10 percent), Poland (9.6 percent) and France (9.3 percent) 32. CO2
emissions per person in some European Union countries are relatively high. Currently, a person in The
Netherlands emits 9.5 tons of CO2 per year, 9.1 in Germany, 8.8 in Finland and in Poland, and 5.6 in the
United Kingdom. On average, a person in the European Union emits 6.8 tons of CO2 per year or almost
three times what a person in Brazil emits33.
The EU and its 28 Member States put forward a legally binding climate pledge to reduce GHG emissions
by at least 40 percent below 1990 level by 2030.
To meet this target, the EU has adopted a large package of measures in 2018 aimed at accelerating the
reduction of GHG emissions, including national coal phase-out plans, increasing renewable energy and
energy efficiency, and legally binding annual emission limits for each Member State in the
transportation, buildings, agriculture and waste management sectors34.
These combined measures and policies are expected to result in GHG emission reductions of 58 percent
by 203035, exceeding the emission reduction commitment in the pledge. Thus, the European Union’s
pledge was deemed sufficient.
India
India is the seventh largest economy in the world, with an average GDP growth rate of seven percent a
year since 2000. It is the fourth largest GHGs and CO2 emitter in the world, accounting for about 7
percent each respectively36. India’s CO2 emissions per person have doubled since 1990, but its historical
emissions were very low, and current emissions are significantly lower than most industrialized
countries. Currently, a person in India emits less than 2 tons of CO2 per year, which is less than half of
what a person in Sweden or a third of what a person in Italy emits37.
Its climate pledge includes three targets:
1. To unconditionally reduce the emission intensity (of all GHGs) of its GDP by 30-35 percent from 2005
level by 2030.
India states that it has already reduced the emission intensity by 12 percent from 2005 level to 2010 38
and by 21 percent over the 2005-2014 period 39. These reductions have been calculated using GDP at
constant 2004-2005 prices (in Rupees), and do not include emissions from agriculture. Using 2011-2012
prices (in Rupees), the reduction percentage is lower40. Using a global dataset in US dollars, India has
reduced the GHG emission intensity of its GDP by about 18 percent from 2005 level in 201541.Despite
the differences in the GDP unit used, India has reduced the emissions intensity of its GDP. By just
32 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of al l world countries - 2019 Report, Publications Office of the European Union
33 Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world countries - 2019 Report, Publ ications Office of the Europ ean Union; Global Carbon Atlas, CO2 emissions per person
34 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018
35 Climate Action Tracker
36 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018, Global Carbon Project
37 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of al l world countries - 2019 Report, Publications Office of the European Union; Global Carbon Atlas, CO2 emissi ons per pers on
38 India’s First Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC (2015)
39 India’s Second Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC (2018)
40 Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India (Press Note on National Account Statistics, Nov. 2018)
41 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of all world countries, 2019 R eport, Emissions Databa se for Global Atmosph eric Research
10
implementing policies already in place, India is likely to achieve a 30-35 percent reduction by 2030 and
may even overachieve it42.
However, India’s GHG emissions have increased by about 76 percent between 2005 and 2017, and are
expected to continue to increase due to economic growth. Its CO2 emissions have more than doubled
over the period 2005-2018 from 1.2 GtCO2 in 2005 to 2.6 GtCO2 in 201843.
India’s commitment to reduce its emissions intensity is indeed encouraging, but it will not result in a
decrease in GHG emissions below current levels. Thus, India’s pledge was deemed insufficient to
contribute to reducing global emissions by 50 percent in 2030.
2. To conditionally achieve 40 percent of non-fossil fuels electric power installed capacity.
India has increased its installed electricity generation capacity by three-fold since 2005, with 57 percent
of its generation still dependent on coal44. The share of non-fossil fuels electric power capacity has
increased as well from 30 percent in 2005 to 35 percent in 2018 of which 20 percent are renewables45.
Thus, by continuing this increasing trend, India could achieve a 40 percent non-fossil-based power
capacity earlier than 2030.
Although renewables are becoming more cost-effective than coal-fired power plants in India, the
expansion of non-fossil fuels electric power may not compensate the lack of action to reduce the share
of electricity generated by coal.
3. To unconditionally create an additional cumulative carbon sink of 2.53 GtCO2e through additional
forest and tree cover.
India forest cover totals about 24 percent of its geographical area. Since 2015, the annual increase of the
carbon stock has been 71.5 MtCO2-eq (metric tons of all GHGs combined)46. The target of creating an
additional cumulative carbon sink of 2.53 GtCO2-eq represents an average annual carbon sink of 167
200 MtCO2e over the period 2016203047. Thus, to reach the target in the climate pledge, India would
have to more than double its current rate of forest cover expansion.
The remaining 152 climate pledges
The remaining 152 climate pledges account for 32.5 percent of global GHG emissions, and 40 percent of
global CO2 emissions.
Based on their emission reduction commitments, these 152 pledges are ranked as:
42 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018
43 Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world countries , 2019 Report, Emissi on Database for Gl obal Atmospheri c Research
44 India’s Second Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC (2018)
45 India’s Second Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC (2018)
46 India’s Second Bi ennial Update Report to the UNFCCC (2018)
47 Climate Action Tracker
11
Sufficient
Besides the European Union and its 28 Member States, seven countries put forward unconditional
pledges with emission reductions equal or above 40 percent. These pledges were deemed as sufficient.
These are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine. The Republic of Moldova
pledged to unconditionally reduce GHG emissions by 64-67 percent below 1990 level, and an additional
11-14 percent conditionally. Because 80 percent of the pledge is independent of international
assistance, this pledge is also deemed sufficient.
Partially Sufficient
Twelve pledges were deemed partially sufficient. Emission reduction commitments from these
countries range from 20-40 percent. These countries include some of the largest emitters in the world,
and need to do much better to reduce emissions. These are Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil,
Canada, Costa Rica, Israel, Japan, Montenegro, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and San Marino.
Japan and Brazil are the sixth and seventh largest GHGs emitters48. Their share of global GHG emissions
is 3 and 2.3 percent respectively.
Japan committed to reduce “GHG emissions by 26 percent below 2013 levels by 2030”, which may be
met. Among other measures, Japan adopted a 2224 percent renewable electricity target by 2030.
Currently, renewables account for 17 percent of Japan’s electricity, with a rapid growth of 50 percent
since 201049. However, Japan is still dependent on fossil fuels for 81 percent of its electricity and 88
percent of its primary energy50. These percentages need to be significantly reduced.
Brazil committed to reduce “GHG emissions by 43 percent below 2005 levels by 2030”. This climate
pledge, however, was put forward by the previous administration. The current one, which took office
last January, reversed key environmental and climate change-related policies and measures. This
political reversal jeopardizes Brazil’s chances of meeting its climate pledge. Furthermore, deforestation
in Amazonia as well as destruction of other ecosystems has accelerated the reduction of carbon sinks,
impacting regional climate.
The Republic of Korea pledged to reduce “GHG emissions by 37 percent below business as usual in
2030”. By using their business as usual projection for 2030 and their latest reported level of GHG
emissions, the Korean pledge equals a 22 percent GHGs reduction below 2014 level in 2030.
Partially Insufficient
Of the remaining 133 pledges, 8 were ranked as partially insufficient. The pledges included in this
category are:
48 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018
49 Electricity generation by fuel Japan: IEA Electricity Information 2018
50 Electricity generation by fuel Japan: IEA Electricity Information 2018, BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2019
12
1. Pledges below 20 percent emission reductions. Commitments from these countries show limited
ambition to address climate change. These are Albania, Jamaica and Serbia. Also included in this
category is Trinidad and Tobago, a high-income country.
2. Pledges with conditional commitments where the country is implementing more than 50 percent of
the pledge from their own resources. These pledges show some effort from the country to reduce
emissions. The four countries under this category are Cook Islands, Kazakhstan, Micronesia and
Solomon Islands.
Insufficient
The rest of the climate pledges, totaling 125, were ranked as insufficient. The pledges in this category
include:
1. Pledges with no emission reduction target. These 36 pledges cannot be quantified or measured.
These include 30 pledges from Armenia, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Cuba, Egypt, El
Salvador, Eswatini, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,
Suriname, Syrian Arabic Republic, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Turkmenistan.
In addition, this category includes six high-income countries that lack emission reduction targets in
their pledges. These are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab
Emirates.
Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have the highest CO2 emissions per person in
the world, with 38, 23.9, 22.4 and 21.8 tons of CO2 per person respectively. On average, that is
about 50 percent higher than the United States and three times more than in Germany51.
2. Pledges with commitments that rely more than 50 percent on international funding for their
implementation. Many of these countries have limited capacity to reduce their emissions and are
reliant on financial and technical assistance, which may not materialize. These pledges, especially for
the upper middle income countries, show minimal effort from the country to reduce emissions.
Among this category, 27 pledges made commitments ranging from 50-90% conditional. These are:
Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Eritrea, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho,
Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Togo and Viet Nam. Of
these pledges, 33 percent are from upper middle-income countries, 30 percent from lower middle-
income countries and 37 percent from low income countries.
In addition, 38 pledges are 100 percent conditional to international support for their full
implementation. These are: Afghanistan, Barbados, Botswana, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central
African Republic, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea,
Honduras, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands,
Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome
51 Fossil CO2 and GHG emi ssions of al l world countries - 2019 Report, Publications Office of the European Union; Global Carbon Atlas, CO2 emissi ons per pers on
13
and Principe, Seychelles, State of Palestine, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu,
Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Of these pledges, 30 percent are from upper middle-income
countries, 32 percent from lower middle-income countries and 26 percent from low income
countries.
Five high-income countries also made totally conditional pledges: Bahamas, Barbados, Oman, Saint
Kitts and Nevis and Seychelles.
3. Pledges with intensity targets. As with China and India, climate pledges based on intensity targets
mostly equal an increase in emissions in 2030 above the current level. These six pledges using
intensity targets are: Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, and three high income countries Chile,
Singapore and Uruguay.
4. Pledges using business as usual (BAU) targets, as well as partially conditional using more than 50
percent of their own resources. These pledges are based on emission reductions below a projected
level of future emissions in 2030 if no actions or policies are implemented. Thus, these
commitments mostly equal an increase in emission in 2030 above the latest level of emissions
reported by each country.
There are 13 pledges under this group.
For example, Indonesia, the eighth largest global emitter, pledged to unconditionally “reduce GHG
emissions by 29 percent below business as usual” by 2030, and an additional 12 percent
conditionally. By using their business as usual projection for 2030 and their latest reported level of
GHG emissions, the Indonesian pledge equals a 40 percent GHG increase above 2016 level in 203052.
The 12 additional countries using the same BAU target, which increases emissions by 2030, are:
Andorra, Argentina, Colombia, Djibouti, Georgia, Mexico, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Peru, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines and Thailand.
Countries with no pledges. Thirteen countries have not yet submitted their climate pledges. These are
Angola, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Libya, Lebanon, Philippines, Russia Federation,
Senegal, South Sudan, Turkey and Yemen.
All of these countries have signed the Paris Agreement. Brunei Darussalam, Philippines and Senegal have
also ratified it and are revising their initial commitments before they become their climate pledges. The
rest of the countries are still in the ratification process of the Paris Agreement.
Emissions from these countries combined account for about 9 percent of global GHG emissions. Of
particular importance among these countries is the Russian Federation the fifth largest global GHG
emitter, contributing 4.6 percent of global GHG emissions53.
52 Indonesia’s NDC (2016) and Biennial Update Report (2018)
53 UNEP, The Emission Ga p Report 2018
14
The price
As long as global emissions are not rapidly reduced, global warming will continue to accelerate. This
means that we could be living in 1.5oC world as early as the 2030s54. As a result, weather events and
patterns will continue to change, and will adversely affect human health, livelihoods, food, water,
biodiversity and economic growth.
Weather events are the result of natural factors. A warming climate has altered the intensity and
frequency of heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and severe storms (or heavy precipitation) and hurricanes
both of which lead to flooding55. Once-a-century severe weather events are now becoming the new
norm.
These weather events influenced by human-induced climate change are becoming more frequent and
intense. They are also becoming more costly.
Economic losses and damages from 690 weather events were $330 billion dollars globally in 2017. These
figures have almost doubled in number and in losses compared to 2005, when 347 weather events
caused $274 billion dollars in economic losses worldwidealmost half of the economic losses were
caused by Hurricane Katrina in the United States56.
Because global warming is accelerating, the number and economic losses from weather events are
projected to at least double again by 2030. That comes to $660 billion dollars a year or almost $2 billion
a day within the next decade.
The world cannot afford these costs on lives, livelihoods and economic growth. This massive price tag is
part of the cost of inaction.
Limiting climate change
Limiting climate change requires rapidly reducing emissions. For more than two decades, climate
scientists have reiterated the same message. Yet, emissions continued to increase.
Today, fossil fuels provide 81 percent of the world’s primary energy57 and the CO2 released with their
use is responsible for 70 percent of the observed warming58. The climate pledges are indeed a critical
first step to reduce emissions; but will only address less than half of emission reductions needed59, if
fully implemented.
There are two ways in which CO2 emissions can be rapidly reduced to double climate action.
One of the fastest ways to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions is to shift electricity generation.
Currently, 38 percent of electricity in the world is generated by burning coal and 26 percent by oil and
54 Universal Ecological Fund: The Truth Abo ut Climate C hange (2016), IPCC: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018)
55 Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspectiv e, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (2015); Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in
the Contex t of Climate Change, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016)
56 NatCatService, Mu nich RE: https://natcatservice.munichre.com/
57 International Ene rgy Agency: IEA World En ergy Balances 20 18
58 UNEP (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018, Global Carbon Atlas, Emission Databas e for Global Atmosp heric Research
59 IPCC: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018)
15
gas. That totals 64 percent of global electricity being generated by fossil fuels, while about 7 percent by
solar and wind60.
To drastically reduce CO2 emissions in the next decade, a 70 percent reduction in coal use for electricity
generation will be necessary as well as a five-fold increase in wind and solar energy61. Yet, about 60
percent of the world’s primary energy will still be dependent on fossil fuels (mainly natural gas and oil)
to power, heat and fuel the world in 2030 62.
The implementation of the current pledges is far from the necessary reduction in coal use and
promotion of renewable energy targets needed to limit human-induced climate change.
Worldwide, there are more than 2,400 coal-fired power stations63. Phasing out and closing these coal-
fired power plants within the next decade is essential to reducing CO2 emissions. This option is viable,
cost-effective and certainly doable. However, due to the misconception that breaking the dependency
on coal may hinder economic growth, vested interests, short-sightedness, bad economics and even
denial make this option unlikely to be implemented within the next decade. In fact, 250 additional coal-
fired power stations are currently under construction64.
Another way to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions is by improving and increasing energy efficiency. Energy
efficiency is one of the key ways the world can meet energy demand with lower energy use. Improving
and increasing energy efficiency could achieve more than 40 percent of CO2 emission reductions by
204065.
Using energy more efficiently is something each one of us can do. It can result in emission reductions as
well as significant savings in energy bills (electricity, natural gas and fuel). Households worldwide could
save more than $500 billion dollars by 2040 by adopting energy efficiency measures that are available
today, for example, better insulation, choices of glass, ‘green’ roofs, heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) choices. Each dollar spent to make vehicles, buildings, appliances and equipment
more efficient pays back, on average, by a factor of three through lower energy bills66.
Solving climate change requires leadership. It also requires the collective effort of all of us.
Leadership from governments
Despite the climate pledges, the policies under implementation and those to be adopted, tax credits for
renewable electricity, carbon pricing and other measures, national governments need to at least double
or triple actions to reduce emissions in the next decade. The next round of new or updated climate
pledges is expected to be submitted by 202067.
World leaders also have the opportunity to show their climate leadership by adopting and implementing
additional policies to reduce emissions and to use energy more efficiently. Policy can accelerate the
implementation of climate solutions.
60 International Ene rgy Agency: Electricity generation mix, 2018
61 IPCC: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018), IAMC 1.5°C Scenario Ex plorer: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
62 IAMC 1.5°C Scenario Explorer: Int ernational Institute for A pplied Systems Analysi s (IIASA)
63 Global Energy Monitor’s Global Coal Plant Tra cker: Number of Coal-fired power stations by cou nty (July 2019 )
64 Global Energy Monitor’s Global Coal Plant Tra cker: Number of Coal-fired power stations by cou nty (July 2019 )
65 IEA Energy Efficiency 2018 report
66 IEA Energy Efficiency 2018 report
67 Paris Ag reement, Arti cle 4.9
16
Stronger leadership is needed to sustain the call for increased climate action, nationally and globally, to
meet the Paris Agreement targets. Since the United States announced its intention to withdraw from
the Paris Agreement in 2017, a number of other countries appear to be paying little or no attention to
the urgent need to reduce emissions. A few world leaders remain strong advocates of the Paris
Agreement, and they need to lead other nations to honor and increase their commitments.
Leadership from the private sector
The burden of addressing climate change cannot be left to governments alone. Business leaders can be
climate leaders. Some have already shown their leadership about 200 major companies committed to
sourcing 100 percent renewable electricity by 205068. For these companies, climate action is a
sustainable way of doing business and a driver of innovation, competitiveness, risk management and
growth. This private sector leadership can also have an influential roleinvestments from businesses
also have the potential to drive policy changes.
Leadership from individuals
Individuals can be climate leaders too. Communities, both as citizens and consumers, can make a major
difference through their coordinated actions. It will only require smarter choices.
We need a paradigm shift in our current culture. Individuals can:
Choose to demand increased climate action from governments a necessary and critical element to
put pressure on governments for climate leadership and smarter choices. After all, Heads of State
have the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of millions of people in their countries;
Choose to purchase goods and service from businesses that are choosing a sustainable business
model over profit;
Contribute to reducing emissions by using energy more efficiently in our homes, where we work or
study, in how we travel, in what we purchase, in what we eat.
Individuals in some countries can have a higher impact in reducing emissions than others, based on their
CO2 emissions per person69 (Figure 3).
Countries where individuals can have the highest impact in reducing emissions, ordered by their CO2
emission per person, are Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam,
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Australia, United States, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Canada, Estonia, Palau, Oman,
Turkmenistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, Iceland, Czechia, Bermuda, Mongolia,
Germany, Netherlands and Japan.
Impact from individual actions to reduce emissions will be also high in Belgium, Poland, Norway, Libya,
Ireland, Finland, Iran, Malaysia, South Africa, Niue, Austria, Israel, New Zealand, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Slovenia, China, Bulgaria, Greece, Andorra, Slovakia, Bahamas, Belarus, Seychelles, Cyprus, Spain,
Denmark, Italy, United Kingdom, Turkey, Antigua and Barbuda, France, Portugal, Equatorial Guinea,
Hungary, Serbia and Iraq.
68 http://there100.org/
69 Global Carbon At las, CO2 emissions per pers on (2017)
17
Young people in many of these countries are leading a global mobilization demanding political action to
address climate change. These young climate advocates can lead and mobilize individuals to take
climate action as well.
Each one of us can be a climate leader.
We all contribute to climate change. We can all help solve it.
18
Annex: The Climate Pledges
The 184 climate pledges were ranked based on their emission reduction commitments.
Sources used to develop the ranking are:
NDC Registry, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat70.
Biennial Update Reports and National Communications to the UNFCCC71.
Additional columns are included with the categorization of countries used by:
The Climate Change Convention, indicating Industrialized and Developing. Among the developing
countries, 47 Least Developing Countries (LDCs) are also indicated72.
The IPCC, indicating country classification by income73: high income countries (HIC), upper middle-income
countries (UMC), lower middle-income countries (LMC) and low income countries (LIC). This
categorization is based on the World Bank’s classification of countries by income, and was updated using
the latest ranking, where 23 countries changed categories74.
SUFFICIENT 36 pledges
Climate pledges above or equal to 40% emission reductions
Country / Party Based on
Categ ory
Unconditional Pledge
UNFCCC IPCC
Europ ean Union (EU -28)
+40% emission
reduction
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Austria
Industrialized High income
At least 40% of GHG emissions below 1990 lev el
Belgi um
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Bulgaria
Industrialized
Upper-middle
income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Croatia
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssio ns bel ow 1990 l evel
Cyprus
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Czechia
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Denmark
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssio ns bel ow 1990 l evel
Estonia
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Finland
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Franc e
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssio ns bel ow 1990 l evel
Germany
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Greece
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Hungary
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssio ns bel ow 1990 l evel
Ireland
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Italy
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Latvia
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssio ns bel ow 1990 l evel
70 Nationall y Determined Contributions: NDC Registry, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
71 Biennial Update Report (BUR) and National Communication (NC) to the Climate Change Convention
72 There are 47 LDCs under the Climate Change Conventi on.
73 The 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report ( AR5) analyzed globa l GHG emissions categorizing countrie s based on their income into high-income, upp er-middle
income, l ower-middle incom e and low-inco me countries: AR5, WGIII, Annex II: Metrics and Methodologies . .
74 This categorizati on of countries by incom e was updated using the 2020 ranking. Compared to the 2014 IPCC assessment, 23 countries changed categories:
Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Comor os, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, K enya, Kyrgyz Republic, Myanmar , Nauru, Paraguay, Russian
Federation, Samoa, Seychelles, South S udan, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arabic Re public, Tunisia , Yemen and Zimbabwe
19
Lithua nia
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Luxembourg
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Malta
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Netherlands
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Polan d
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Port ugal
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Romania
Industrialized
Upper-middle
income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Slovakia
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Slovenia
Industrialized High income
At lea st 40% of GH G emis sions below 19 90 lev el
Spain
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Sweden
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
United Kingd om
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Icela nd
40% emission
reduction
Industrialized High income
40% of GHG emissions below 1990 l evel
Liechtenstein
40% emission
reduction
Industrialized High income
40% of GHG emissions below 1990 level
Monaco
+40% emission
reduction
Industrialized High income
50% of GHG emissions below 1990 l evel
Norwa y
+40% emission
reduction
Industrialized High income
At l east 40 % of GHG emi ssions bel ow 1990 level
Switzerland
+40% emission
reduction
Industrialized High income
50% of GHG emissions below 1990 l evel
Ukraine
+40% emission
reduction
Industrialized Low er-middle
income
Not to exceed 60% of GHG emissions below 1990 lev el
Republic of Moldova
+40% emission
reduction
Developing Low er-middle
income
64-67% of GHG emissi ons bel ow 1990 level
75
PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT 12 pledges
Climate pledges between 20-40% emission reductions
Country Based on
Categ ory
Unconditional Pledge
UNFCCC IPCC
Australia
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Industrialized High income
26-28% of GHG emission below 2005 level
Azerbaijan
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Developing Upper-middle
income
35% of GHG emissions below 1990 l evel
Belar us
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Industrialized Upper-middle
income
At lea st 28% of GH G emis sions below 19 90 lev el
Brazil
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Developing Upper-middle
income
37% of GHG emissions below 2005 l evel (by 2025)
Canad a
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Industrialized High income
30% of GHG emissions below 2005 level
Costa Rica
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Developing Upper-middle
income
25% of GHG emissions below 2012
Isra el
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Developing High income
26% of GHG emissi ons per capita below 2005 level
Japan
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Industrialized High-income
26% of GHG emissions below 2013 l evel
Montenegr o
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Developing Upper-middle
income
30% of GHG emissions below 1990 l evel
New Zealand
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Industrialized High income
30% of GHG emissi ons below 20 05 level
75
The Republic of Moldova also made a conditional pledge to reduce an additional 11-14% of GHG emissions below 1990 level (total up to 78%). Because 80
percent of the pledg e depends on national a ctions, equal or above 40% emission reduct ions, this pledge was deemed sufficient.
20
Republ ic of Korea
20-40% emission
reduction
BAU target
Developing High income
37% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
22.4% reduction below 2014 level
by 2030
76
)
San Marino
20-40% emi ssion
reduction
Developing High income
20% of GHG emissions below 2005 l evel
PARTIALLY INSUFFICIENT8 pledges
Climate pledges below 20% emission reductions and/or up to 50% conditional
Country Based on
Categ ory
Unconditional pledge Conditional pledge
UNFCCC
IPCC
Albani a
Below 20%
emissi on redu ction
Developing Upper-middle
income
11.5% of CO
2
emissi ons bel ow 2016
level
Cook Islands Up to 50%
conditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
38% of CO
2
emissions from
elect ricity generati on bel ow 2006
level
43% of CO
2
emissions from electricity
generation bel ow 200 6 level (total 81%)
Jamaica
Below 20%
emissi on redu ction
Developing Upper-middle
income
7.8% of GHG emi ssion s below BAU
Additional 2.2% of GHG emissions below BAU
(total 10%)
Kazakhstan
Up to 50%
conditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
15% of GHG emissions below 1990
level
Additional 10% of GHG emissions below 1990
level (total 25%)
Micronesia Up to 50%
conditional
Developing Low er-middle
income
28% of GHG emissions below 2000
level (by 2025)
Additional 7% of GHG emissions below BAU
(by 2025) (t otal 35%)
Serbi a
Below 20%
emissi on redu ction
Developing Upper-middle
income
9.8% of GHG emissions below 1990
level
Solomon Islands
Up to 50%
conditional
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
30% of GHG emissions below 2015
level
Additional 15% of GHG emissions below 2015
level (total 45%)
Trinidad and Tobago
Below 20%
emissi on redu ction
Developing High i ncome
30% of GHG emissions in public
transportation below BAU
15% of GHG emissions below BAU
INSUFFICIENT128 pledges
Climate pledges with no emission reduction target, more t han 50% conditional, with intensity target and/or with Business as Usual
(BAU) target
For +pledges with BAU targets, the percentage of actual emission reduction or increase below the latest level of emissions is
included under each pledge, indicated in italics. Sources are included in footnotes.
Country Based on
Catego ry Unconditional pledge Conditional Pledge
UNFCCC IPCC
Afghanistan 100% condition al
Developing
LDC
Low income
13.6% of GHG emissions below BAU
Algeria +50% condi tional
Developing Upper-middle
income
7% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 15% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 22%)
Andorra
BAU target
Developing H igh inco me
37% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
14% reduction
below 2017
level
by 2030
77
)
Antig ua and Barbuda
No emission
reduction target
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures below B AU Poli cies and m easures bel ow BAU
Argentina
BAU target
Developing Upper-middle
income
18% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
31% increase
above 20 14
level by 2 030
78
)
Additional 19% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 37%)
Armenia
No emission
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
76
Republic of Korea NDC (2016) and BUR (2017)
77 Andorra NDC (2017) and BUR (2019)
78 Argentina NDC (2016) and BUR (2017)
21
Bahamas 100% conditional
Developing H igh inco me
30% of GHG emissions below BAU
79
Bahrain
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures
Bangladesh +50% conditi onal
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
5% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 10% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 15%)
Barba dos 100% conditional
Developing H igh inco me
44% of GHG emissions below BAU
Beli ze
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
Benin +50% conditi onal
Developing
LDC Low income
3.6% of GHG emi ssion s below BAU
Additional 12.5% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 16%)
Bhuta n
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
Policies and measures towards
carbon neutrality
Policies and measures towards carbon
neutrality
Bolivia
No emission
reduction target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Bosni a and
Herz egovi na
+50% conditi onal
Developing Upper-middle
income
2% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 21% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 23%)
Botsw ana 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
15% of GHG emissions below 2010 l evel
Burki na Fas o +50% con ditional
Developing
LDC Low income
6% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 11.6% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 18%)
Burun di +50 % condi tional
Developing
LDC Low income
3% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 17% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 20%)
Cabo Verde
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing
Low er-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Cambodia 100% condition al
Developing
LDC
Low income
Poli cies an d measures 27% of GHG emissions below BAU
Cameroon 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
32% of GHG emissions below 2010 l evel (by
2035)
Centr al African
Republic
100% condition al
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures 5% of GHG emissions below BAU
Chad +50% conditional
Developing
LDC Low income
18.2% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 53% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 71%)
Chile
Intensity target
Developing H igh inco me
30% of emissions per unit of GDP
below 2007 l evel
Additional 5-15% of C O2 emis sions per unit
of GDP bel ow 2007 level (total 35-4 5%)
China
Intensity target
Developing Upper-middle
income
60-65% of CO
2
emissi ons per uni t of
GDP b elow 2 005 lev el
Colombia
BAU target
Developing Upper-middle
income
20% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
13% increase
above 20 14
level
by 2030
80
)
Additional 10% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 30%)
Comoros 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
84% of GHG emissions below BAU
Congo (Republ ic of) 100% conditional
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
48% of GHG emissions below BAU (by
2025)
Cote d'Ivoir e 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
28% of GHG emissions below BAU
Cuba
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
Democratic People's
Republ ic of Korea
+50% conditi onal
Developing Low income
8% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 32% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 40%)
Democratic Republi c
of t he Congo
100% condition al
Developing
LDC Low income
17% of GHG emissions below BAU
Djibouti
BAU targ et
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
40% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
36% incre ase
above 20 10
level by 2 030
81
)
Additional 20% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 60%)
Domi nica 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
44.7% of GHG emissions below 2014 level
Dominican R epubli c 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
25% of GHG emissions below 2010 l evel
Ecuador +50 % condit ional
Developing Upper-middle
income
9% of GHG emissions below BAU (by
2025)
Additional 11.9% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 20 .9%) (by 2025)
Egypt
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
79 Bahamas NDC indicates a 30% GHG emission reduction below BAU target (on page 4) and a 30% GHG emission reduction below 2010 level (on page 11)
80 Colombia NDC (2018) and BUR (2018)
81 Djibouti NDC (2016)
22
El Sal vador
No emission
reduction target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Equatorial Guinea 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
20% of GHG emissions below 2010 l evel
Eritrea +50% conditional
Developing
LDC Low income
12% of CO
2
emissions below BAU
Additional 26.5% of CO
2
emissions below
BAU (total 38.5%)
Eswatini
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing
Low er-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Ethio pia 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Low income
64% of GHG emissions below BAU
Fiji +50% conditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
10% of CO
2
emissions below BAU
Additional 20% of CO
2
emissi ons bel ow BAU
(total 30%)
Gabon 100% conditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
At least 50% of GHG emissions below 2000
level (by 2025)
Gambia 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Low income
Poli cies an d measures 45.4% of GHG emissions below BAU
Georgia
BAU target
Developing Upper-middle
income
15% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals an
85% increase
above 2015
level by 2 030
82
)
Additional 10% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 25%)
Ghana +50% conditi onal
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
15% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 30% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 45%)
Grena da 100% conditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
30% of GHG emissions below 2010 l evel (by
2025)
Guatemala +50% conditi onal
Developing Upper-middle
income
11.2% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 11.4% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 22.6%)
Guinea 100% condition al
Developing
LDC
Low income
13% of GHG emissions below 1994 l evel
Guinea-Bissau
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures
Guyana
No emission
reduction target
Developing
Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures for CO
2
emission reduction (by 2025)
Poli cies an d measures for CO
2
emissi on
reduction (by 2025)
Haiti +50 % conditi onal
Developing
LDC Low income
5% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 21% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 26%)
Honduras 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
15% of GHG emissions below BAU
India
Intensity target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
33-35% of CO
2
emis sion int ensity of
GDP b elow 2 005 lev el
40% of non-fossil fuels electric power
installed capacity
Indonesia
BAU target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
29% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
40% increase
above 20 16
level
by 2030
83
)
Additional 12% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 41%)
Jorda n +50 % co nditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
1.5% of GHG emi ssion s below BAU
Additional 12.5% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 14%)
Kenya 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
30% of GHG emissions below BAU
Kiribati +50% c onditio nal
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
12.8% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 49% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 61.8%)
Kuwait
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures
Lao People's
Democratic Republi c
100% condition al
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
Lesot ho +50% c onditio nal
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
10% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 25% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 35%)
Liberia 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Low income
15% of GHG emissions below BAU
Madagascar 100% condition al
Developing
LDC
Low income
14% of GHG emissions below BAU
Malawi
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Malaysia
Intensity target
Developing
Upper-middle
income
35% of GHG emissions intensity
below 2005 l evel
Additional 10% of GHG emissions intensity
below 2005 l evel (total 45%)
Maldives +50% c onditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
10% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 14% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 24%)
Mali BAU target
Developing
LDC Low-i ncome
GHG emission targets by sector
belo w BAU
84
GHG emission targets by sector below BAU
82 Georgia NDC (2017) and BUR (2019). Georgia’s GHG emissions have been reduced by 6 0% below 1990 level in 2015
83 Indonesia NDC (2016) and BUR (2018)
84 Mali GHG emission reductions by sector: 29% agricult ure, 31% energy and 21% forest. The percentage of conditionality i s expressed in US dollars, not GHG
emission red uctions.
23
Marshall Islands 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
At least 45% of GHG emissions below 2010
level
Mauri tania +50% conditio nal
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
2.6% of GHG emissions bel ow BAU
Additional 19.6% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 22.3%)
Mauri tius 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
30% of GHG emissions below BAU
Mexico
BAU target
Developing Upper-middle
income
22% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
9% increase
above 2015
level
by 2030
85
)
Additional 14% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 36%)
Mongolia 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
14% of GHG emissions below BAU
Moroc co +50 % condi tional
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
17% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 25% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 42%)
Mozambique
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures
Myanmar
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
Namibia 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
89% of GHG emissions below BAU
Nauru
No emission
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Nepal
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures
Nicaragua
No emission
reduction target
Developing
Low er-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Niger +50% conditio nal
Developing
LDC Low income
3.5% of GHG emissions bel ow BAU
Additional 31% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 34.6%)
Nigeria +50% condi tional
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
20% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 25% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 45%)
North Macedonia BAU target
Developing
Upper-middle
income
30-36% of C O
2
emissions below BAU
(equals a
34-47% i ncrease
above
2014 level by 2030
86
)
Niue +50 % co nditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
38% share of renewable electricity
(by 2020)
Additional 42% share of renewable
electricity (t otal 80%) (by 2025)
Oman 100% condition al
Developing H igh inco me
2% of GHG emission below BAU
Pakistan 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
Up to 20% of GH G emi ssions below BAU
Palau 100% conditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
22% of CO
2
emissions in the energy sector
below 2005 l evel (by 2025)
Panama
No emission
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Papua New Gui nea
No emission
reduction target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Paraguay BAU target
Developing Upper-middle
income
10% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
61% incre ase
above th e
projected 2020 level by 2030
87
)
Additional 10% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 20%)
Peru BAU targ et
Developing Upper-middle
income
20% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
27% incre ase
above 20 12
level by 2 030
88
)
Additional 10% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 30%)
Qatar
No emission
reduction target
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Rwanda
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures
Saint Kitts a nd Nevi s 100% conditional
Developing H igh inco me
35% of GHG emissions below BAU
Saint Lucia 100% conditional
Developing
Upper-middle
income
23% of GHG emissions below BAU
Saint Vincent and th e
Grena din es BAU tar get
Developing Upper-middle
income
22% of GHG emissions below BAU (by
2025)
(equals a
15% incre ase
above 20 10
level by 2 025
89
)
85 Mexico NDC (2016) and BUR (2018). Mexico also pledged to unconditionally reduce 51% of Short Lived Climate Pollutants (black carbon)
86 North Macedonia has already reduced CO2 emissions by 10% below 1990 level in 2014: NDC (2015) and BUR (2018)
87 Paraguay NDC (2016)
88 Peru NDC (2015) and NC (2015)
89 St. Vincent and the Grenadines NDC (2016) and NC (2016)
24
Samoa
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
100% renewable electricity ( by 2025)
Sao Tome and
Princi pe
100% condition al
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
24% of GHG emissions below BAU
Saudi Arabia
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures
Seyc helles 100% conditional
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures 29% of GHG emissions below BAU
Sierra Leone
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing
LDC Low income
Poli cies an d measures
Singa pore
Intensity target
Developing
High i ncome
36% of GHG emissions intensity
below 2005 l evel
Somalia
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC Lo w income
Poli cies an d measures
South Africa
No emission
reduction target
Developing
Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Sri La nka +50% c onditional
Developing Upper-middle
income
7% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 23% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 30%)
State of Palestine 100% c onditional
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
12.8% of GHG emissions below BAU (under
Status Quo of Isra eli occupati on) (by 2 040)
Sudan
No emission
reduction target
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
Suriname
No emission
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Policies and measures (by 2025) Policies and measures (by 2025)
Syria n Arabic
Republic
No emission
reduction target
Developing Low income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Tajikistan +50 % conditi onal
Developing Low income
15% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 65-75% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 80-90%)
Thailand BAU target
Developing Upper-middle
income
20% of GHG emissions below BAU
(equals a
39% incre ase
above 20 13
level by 2 030
90
)
Additional 5% of GHG emissions below BAU
(total 25%)
Timor-Leste
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
Policies and measures (by 2025)
Togo +50 % conditi onal
Developing
LDC Low income
11.14% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 20% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 31.14%)
Tonga
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Policies and measur es Policies a nd mea sures
Tunisia
Intensity target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
13% of car bon intensit y below 20 10
level
Additional 28% of carbon intensity below
2010 level (total 41%)
Turkmenistan
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures Polici es and measures
Tuvalu 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Upper-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
60% of GHG emissions from energy sector
below 2010 l evel (by 2025)
Uganda 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Low income
Poli cies an d measures 22% of GHG emissions below BAU
United Arab Emirates
No emissio n
reduction target
Developing H igh inco me
Poli cies an d measures
United Republic of
Tanzania
100% condition al
Developing
LDC Lo w income
Poli cies an d measures 10-20% of GHG emissions below BAU
United Stat es of
America
Reversal in federal
policy
Industrialized High-income
26-28% of GHG emissions below
2005 level (by 2025)
Uruguay
Intensity target
Developing High-income
Emission intensity targets by GHGs
below 1990 l evel
91
(by 2025)
Emission intensity targets by GHGs below
1990 level (by 2025)
Uzbekista n
Intensity target
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
Poli cies an d measures
10% of GHG emissions by unit of GDP
below 2010 level
Vanuatu 100% conditional
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
30% of CO
2
emissions in the energy sector
belo w BAU
Venezuela 100% condition al
Developing
Upper-middle
income
At least 20% of GHG emissions below BAU
Viet Nam +50% conditional
Developing Lo wer-middle
income
8% of GHG emissions below BAU
Additional 17% of GHG emissions below
BAU (total 25%)
90 Thailand NDC (2016) and BUR (2017)
91 Uruguay: 24% reduction in CO2 emission i ntensity per GDP unit, 57% reduction in methane (C H4) emission intensi ty per GDP unit, and 48% reduction in nitrous
oxide (N 2O) emission intensity pe r GDP unit
25
Zambia 100% c onditional
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
47% of GHG emissions below 2010 l evel
Zimba bwe 100% conditional
Developing
Low er-middle
income
33% GHG energy emissions per capita
belo w BAU
NO CLIMATE PLEDGE
Countries that h ave signed and/or ratified the P aris Agree ment but have not
yet submitted their climate pledges
Country
Categ ory
UNFCCC IPCC
Angola
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
income
Brunei Darussalam
Developing
High income
Iran
Developing
Upper-middle
income
Iraq
Developing
Upper-middle
income
Kyrgy z Republi c
Developing
Low income
Lebanon
Developing
Upper-middle
income
Libya
Developing
Upper-middle
income
Phili ppines
Developing
Low er-middle
income
Russian Federation
Industrialized
Upper-middle
income
Seneg al
Developing
LDC
Low er-middle
inco me - LDC
South Sudan
Developing
LDC
Low income
Turkey
Industrialized
Upper-middle
income
Yemen
Developing
LDC
Low income
... Multi criterion decision making techniques are becoming increasingly useful to analyze real life problems. Different researchers are applying several techniques like Soft computing techniques [39][40][41][42][43][44], Graph theory [45,46], Fuzzy logic [47,48], Optimization techniques [49,50]. ...
... Domestic battery manufacturing has a massive opportunity for India as batteries account for almost 40 per cent of total cost of EVs. In the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, India had pledged to unconditionally reduce the emission intensity of its Gross Domestic Product by 30-35 percent from 2005 level by 2030 and achieve 40 percent of its installed power capacity from renewable (Watson et al., 2019) [40]. This green initiative has the objective of not only making our cities pollution free but also reduce imports [41], and progressively utilizing renewable energy from the sun for driving electric vehicles. ...
Article
Full-text available
E-Rickshaw is an E-vehicle that has three wheels, a rechargeable battery driven electric motor as engine. E-rickshaw has become very popular due to low operating cost, low maintenance cost, eco-friendliness and ease of driving. It is perfect for small distance transport. As a last mile connector, it has transformed the public transport system in India. The low cost electric vehicle carries enough people to make a decent income and hence has become a source of livelihood for many. For considering the issues in this paper, detailed attributes of E-rickshaw are studied and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been applied to calculate criteria weights for the sorted attributes. Subsequently, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique has been applied for the selection of best E-Rickshaw. In this paper, sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis have been conducted for further insight.
... 25,331 Likewise, government responses to unprecedented global warming and wild species extinction crises have been inadequate and inconsistent. 332,333 Yet, as a sustainable global future depends on urgent transformative change of current socio-cultural systems, there is no substitute for early action. 196,334 It is to be hoped that the COVID-19 crisis will act as a trigger for global societies to recommit to what is most vital, prompting them to examine and act upon the scale of environmental disruption and the threat of zoonotic disease that we are facing. ...
Article
Full-text available
A debate has emerged over the potential socio-ecological drivers of wildlife-origin zoonotic disease outbreaks and emerging infectious disease (EID) events. This Review explores the extent to which the incidence of wildlife-origin infectious disease outbreaks, which are likely to include devastating pandemics like HIV/AIDS and COVID-19, may be linked to excessive and increasing rates of tropical deforestation for agricultural food production and wild meat hunting and trade, which are further related to contemporary ecological crises such as global warming and mass species extinction. Here we explore a set of precautionary responses to wildlife-origin zoonosis threat, including: (a) limiting human encroachment into tropical wildlands by promoting a global transition to diets low in livestock source foods; (b) containing tropical wild meat hunting and trade by curbing urban wild meat demand, while securing access for indigenous people and local communities in remote subsistence areas; and (c) improving biosecurity and other strategies to break zoonosis transmission pathways at the wildlife-human interface and along animal source food supply chains.
... One interpretation of equality requires those in equal positions to contribute equally to addressing the problem. A more common approach is to affirm an equal right to emit GHGs, often employed as an equal-per-capita (EPC) indicator starting from current emissions in each nation 28,29 . This view encounters a number of problems. ...
Article
The Parties to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement agreed to act on the basis of equity to protect the climate system. Equitable effort sharing is an irreducibly normative matter, yet some influential studies have sought to create quantitative indicators of equitable effort that claim to be value-neutral (despite evident biases). Many of these studies fail to clarify the ethical principles underlying their indicators, some mislabel approaches that favour wealthy nations as ‘equity approaches’ and some combine contradictory indicators into composites we call derivative benchmarks. This Perspective reviews influential climate effort-sharing assessments and presents guidelines for developing and adjudicating policy-relevant (but not ethically neutral) equity research. Contributions to mitigate climate change should be equitable under the Paris Agreement, yet researchers take sharply diverging approaches to assessing national effort. This Perspective evaluates the literature and presents guidelines for policy-relevant—and ethically explicit—research on equity.
Thesis
Full-text available
This study aims to problematize the linkage between energy and security in the context of climate crisis. This study provides a brief history of energy alterations through a comparative analysis of pre-industrial and industrial times and then, investigates the position and referent objects of the concept of energy security in International Relations paradigms. This study examines both traditional and contemporary approaches to the concept of energy security within the scope of realist, liberal and environmental security paradigms. This study asserts that neither traditional approaches in terms of national security, military security and economic growth nor contemporary approaches in terms of environmental security and human security can be effective in providing integrated and universal referent paradigm for the concept of energy security. Therefore, this study proposes the concept of planetary security as an alternative referent paradigm for the relationship between energy security and climate crisis. The main idea is that the concept of planetary security can provide integrated and universal framework for energy security policies. The concept of planetary security can provide normative and conceptual clarifications for energy security policies. Securitization of the planet can encourage a critical re-evaluation for the referent positions of nation states and human beings in the context of energy security.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on global efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions. After having established the ineptness of the traditional state-centric logic of global environmental governance to deal with global environmental challenges, the chapter turns its attention to two major global movements that break with this logic. The first case study introduces the efforts of cities and transnational city networks, particularly the C40 Cities Group, the leading transnational network of megacities, to confront climate change. The second case study looks at transnational mobilisation efforts of indigenous communities to tackle deforestation and climate change, examining the relationship of indigenous communities with nature and discussing the differences between indigenous cosmologies and modern world views.
Research Proposal
Full-text available
This project aims to develop the first normative theory that pertains to most financial debts. It does this by extending the normative significance of due diligence in debt markets.
Article
Full-text available
How much is religion quantitatively involved in global climate politics? After assessing the role of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change from a normative perspective, this descriptive, transdisciplinary and unconventional study offers the first comprehensive quantitative examination of religious nongovernmental organizations that formally participate in its annual meetings, the largest attempts to solve the climate crisis through global governance. This study finds that although their numbers are growing, only about 3 percent of registered nongovernmental organizations accredited to participate in the conference are overtly religious in nature—and that more than 80 percent of those faith-based groups are Christian. Additionally, this study finds that religious nongovernmental organizations that participate in the conference are mostly from the Global North. The results call for greater participation of religious institutions in the international climate negotiations in order for society to address the planetary emergency of climate change.
Chapter
Full-text available
Chapter 11 - The unlikely transition to an "other" mode of production in the Anthropocene - analyzes the change necessary for the transition from a growth model based on the unconditional exploitation of natural resources to one that allows their protection and careful exploitation. The chapter covers the process of changing knowledge, shared values and rules for the management and use of natural resources at the turn of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. It focuses on the change in the perception of the damage done by human beings with the extension of the globalization of the economy and analyzes the initiatives implemented by China and India for sustainable development. Il capitolo 11 – La transizione improbabile verso un “altro” modo di produzione nell’Antropocene – analizza il cambiamento necessario per la transizione da un modello di crescita basato sullo sfruttamento incondizionato delle risorse naturali a uno che consenta la loro tutela e un oculato sfrutta- mento. Il capitolo percorre il processo di cambiamento della conoscenza, dei valori condivisi e delle regole per la gestione e l’uso delle risorse naturali a cavallo fra la fine secolo XX e l’inizio del XXI. Si sofferma sul cambiamento della percezione del danno compiuto dall’essere umano con l’estendersi della globalizzazione dell’economia e analizza le iniziative messe in atto da Cina e India per lo sviluppo sostenibile.
Article
Full-text available
The Covid-19 health crisis will eventually fade out, but the consequential economic crisis is right ahead of us, along with the ongoing climate crisis. The European Union’s policies and institutions seem to hinder the green transition, in favor of fiscal balance and debt repayment among its member states. This paper proposessome fiscal policies, such as an EU “Employer of Last Resort” (ELR) program,which could successfully counter the upcoming depression and climate change, to finally bring economic and social prosperity to the EU’s citizens.
Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change
Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (2015); Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016)
  • Munich Natcatservice
  • Re
NatCatService, Munich RE: https://natcatservice.munichre.com/ 57 International Energy Agency: IEA World Energy Balances 2018
Global Carbon Atlas, Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research 59 IPCC
UNEP (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018, Global Carbon Atlas, Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research 59 IPCC: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018)
Mexico also pledged to unconditionally reduce 51% of Short Lived Climate Pollutants
  • Ndc Mexico
Mexico NDC (2016) and BUR (2018). Mexico also pledged to unconditionally reduce 51% of Short Lived Climate Pollutants (black carbon)
  • Ndc Andorra
Andorra NDC (2017) and BUR (2019)