International

Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is working with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for the post-2012 international climate framework. Read more

 

How the US can meet its climate pledge

The following was published in March 2016 on the EcoWomen blog. View the original post here.

I let out a cheer when Leonardo DiCaprio mentioned climate change during his Oscars acceptance speech. But concern about climate extends far beyond the red carpet.

Religious leaders, military officials, mayors, governors, business executives, and leaders of the world’s nations are all speaking about the need to address the greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our environment and economies.

Last December, world leaders reached a landmark climate agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 21) that commits all countries to contribute their best efforts and establishes a system to hold them accountable. COP 21’s Paris Agreement also sent a signal to the world to ramp up investment in a clean energy and clean transportation future.

The U.S. committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 level by 2025. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Power Plan was touted as a key policy tool to help reach that goal. However, with the recent surprise stay of the rule by U.S. Supreme Court, can the U.S. still meet its climate pledge? Simply put, yes.

Decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions

Source: International Energy Agency

For the second year in a row, the global economy grew and global carbon dioxide emissions did not.

Preliminary data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (from burning fossil fuels for electricity, transportation, industry, space heating and so on) remained unchanged from the previous two years at around 32.1 billion metric tons. Meanwhile, economic growth increased by more than 3 percent for the second consecutive year.

A couple years of data doesn’t necessarily translate into a trend. And continued ambition in the decades ahead - like we saw with the landmark Paris Agreement in December 2015 - will be required before we can announce that we have truly turned the corner on reducing CO2 emissions.

But the IEA noted that 90 percent of new electric generation in 2015 came from renewables. Yes, 90 percent. And this apparent decoupling – after decades of energy-related CO2 emissions moving in lockstep with economic growth -- is a positive sign that low-carbon policies may finally be gaining traction in many parts of the world.

The change is due to policies and market forces affecting two factors – energy intensity and fuel mix – both in China and in the developed economies.

Bob Perciasepe statement on US-Canada climate cooperation

Statement of Bob Perciasepe
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

March 10, 2016

With their joint announcement today, President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau have set the stage for closer cooperation than ever before between the United States and Canada in meeting our shared climate and energy challenges. Given the inextricable links between our economies and our energy systems, it’s in everyone’s interest that our respective efforts are more closely aligned. 

We’re especially encouraged by the emphasis placed by the two leaders on the use of market-based approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as cost-effectively as possible. California and Quebec have already formally linked their emissions trading systems, and the recent Paris Agreement can facilitate broader use of market-based policies globally. As the United States and Canada work to strengthen their domestic policies and implement the Paris Agreement, they should explore opportunities to realize the environmental and economic benefits of a more fully developed regional trading system.

In other areas, including the urgent need to reduce short-lived climate forcers such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons, the two leaders have set ambitious goals. In pursuing their common agenda, it is vital the two governments continue work in close partnership with the private sector to ensure that policies aimed at achieving those goals are practical and cost-effective.

--

Contact: Laura Rehrmann, rehrmannl@c2es.org or 703-516-0621

About C2ES: The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization promoting strong policy and action to address the challenges of energy and climate change. Learn more at www.c2es.org.

What's ahead for carbon markets after COP 21

The following was published in the February 2016 edition of Biores, a publication of the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

By Anthony Mansell, International Fellow, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)

The new climate deal includes several provisions relevant to market-based emissions reductions efforts. 

At a UN conference in Paris, France in December countries agreed to a new framework for international cooperation on climate change. The “Paris Agreement” ties together nationally determined contributions (NDCs) with international rules and procedures to ensure transparency and promote rising ambition. Paris also provided a future for international market mechanisms as a tool for countries to fulfil their NDCs.

Many NDCs submitted as part of the Paris process demonstrate an enthusiasm for market approaches. Sixty-five governments say they will use international markets and another 24 will consider using them in the future. Many groups such as the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) urged support in Paris for the use of market mechanisms and a ministerial declaration issued by 18 governments at the close of the conference was designed to send “a clear signal to the global carbon market…that there is an important role for markets in the post-2020 period.”

The Paris Agreement includes provisions that can advance carbon markets in two ways: by ensuring there is no double counting when countries engage in emissions trading, and by establishing a new mechanism to facilitate trading. In both areas, however, the text provides only broad parameters and important details remain to be decided. This article addresses the current state of carbon markets, their history in international climate agreements, and relevant provisions of the Paris deal – including issues still to be negotiated before it comes into effect.

Carbon market context

Carbon pricing is currently in place in 38 jurisdictions, according to the World Bank, encompassing both carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes (ETS). A number of additional policies are scheduled to enter force between now and 2020 including carbon taxes planned for Chile and South Africa. Ontario will develop an ETS similar to neighbouring Québec and US states Washington and Oregon are considering the same. In terms of scale, the most significant will be a new national ETS in 2017 across China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter.

Not all carbon market programmes seek to trade internationally; some focus solely on domestic emission reductions. Nevertheless, bottom-up linkages are already occurring. For example, California and Québec have linked their cap-and-trade programs, making carbon allowances and offsets fungible between programs. There are also ongoing discussions in California about using sector-based offsets that reduce deforestation – known as REDD+ – from Acre, Brazil and Chiapas, Mexico. The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Swiss ETS have agreed a link, pending ratification by each.

In addition, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is to decide by the end of this year on the design of a global market-based mechanism (MBM) to reduce emissions from aviation. The MBM would come into force in 2020, around the same time the Paris Agreement aims to be in place.

History of international market mechanisms

Market-based approaches are not referred to in the founding 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) document, but were integral to the design of its first sub-agreement, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Under Kyoto, participating developed countries have binding emission limits – “quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments” – inscribed in Annex B of the agreement. They are allocated “assigned amount units” (AAUs) in line with those targets and, to enable least-cost emission reduction, are permitted to trade AAUs and other certified emission units.

Kyoto established three methods for transferring units – either emission allowances or emission reductions – between countries. International Emissions Trading (IET) allows countries that have reduced emissions below their targets to sell excess allowances to countries whose emissions exceed their targets. Joint Implementation (JI) allows Annex B countries to earn emission reduction units (ERUs) through emission reduction or removal projects in other Annex B countries. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows Annex B countries to earn certified emission reduction (CERs) credits through emissions-reduction projects in developing countries.

Emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol relies on international oversight. All transfers are tracked using a registry called the International Transaction Log (ITL). A common accounting standard applies to all countries with emission targets. An executive board must approve the methodology CDM projects propose using. Finally, under the Protocol, only the international transfers it sanctions are considered legitimate to fulfil a country’s emissions-cutting obligations.

The Kyoto model provides important infrastructure for an international carbon market. Common accounting procedures ensure that any transfer meets an internationally agreed level of environmental integrity. An AAU allocated to Switzerland represents a metric tonne of emissions measured using the same standard as an AAU allocated to Norway. Common offset methodologies give a blueprint to replicate in projects across the globe. The CDM has been able to issue 1.4 billion credits – each representing a metric tonne of avoided emissions – and mobilise over US$400 billion in investment using this international rulebook for managing offset projects. Moreover, when countries submit their national GHG inventories, any recorded transfers can be verified by checking the international registry thereby reducing the potential for emissions double counting.

The Kyoto Protocol's market mechanisms have, however, lately encountered shrinking participation. One reason has been a reliance on the EU ETS as a source of demand, where low economic growth and restrictions placed on the types of credits has created a generous oversupply of CDM credits.

The Paris Agreement and carbon markets

The Paris Agreement establishes a fundamentally different framework from Kyoto. Rather than binding emission limits, which readily lend themselves to market approaches, the new climate regime requires all parties to undertake nationally determined contributions of their own choosing. As of writing, 187 countries had put forward NDCs, presenting various 2020-2030 target reduction dates.  These contributions are not legally binding and come in many forms, ranging from absolute economy-wide targets to peaking years, carbon intensity reductions, and so on. A new transparency system will apply to all parties, but will be less prescriptive than the accounting of AAUs that underpinned the Kyoto Protocol.

Fitting market approaches into this new landscape poses a different set of challenges. In a literal sense, the Paris Agreement is silent on markets, in that the term does not feature in the text. This is not unusual, the Kyoto Protocol also did not include the term. Instead, the new agreement houses markets under Article 6, geared towards addressing “voluntary cooperation” between parties in achieving their NDCs.

Article 6 recognises that parties may choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in implementing their NDCs. If these “cooperative approaches” involve the use of “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes,” or ITMOs, robust accounting shall be used to avoid double counting. The use of ITMOs are voluntary and authorised by participating parties.

The same article also establishes a mechanism to contribute to GHG mitigation and support sustainable development. The new mechanism will be under the authority of meeting of parties to the Paris Agreement. It has four listed aims including to promote greenhouse gas mitigation while fostering sustainable development; incentivise and facilitate participation by public and private entities who are authorised by a party; contribute to reduction of emissions level in host country, which can also be used by another party to fulfil its NDC; and deliver an overall reduction in global emissions. In addition, emission reductions occurring from the new mechanism must not be double counted. A share of proceeds will be used to cover administrative expenses and assist developing countries to meet the costs of adaptation, which is similar to the share of proceeds under the CDM, a portion of which was channelled to the Adaptation Fund. Article 6.8 and 6.9 contain a framework for promoting “integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches.”  

So what comes next? When the CDM, JI, and IET were established under the Kyoto Protocols, the details were not finalised until the Marrakech Accords four years later. Similarly, the COP21 outcome sets a work plan for negotiators to deliberate and decide how the Paris system will work, to be addressed in upcoming UNFCCC meetings.

Cooperative approaches accounting

The existing UNFCCC accounting system is bifurcated between developed and developing economies. Under the Convention, GHG inventories are required each year for industrialised countries, while these are included in national communications submitted every four years for developing nations.

The Paris Agreement establishes an “enhanced transparency framework for action and support,” with built-in flexibility to take into account national capacities. Under this framework each party must submit a national greenhouse gas inventory. An accompanying decision elaborates that all countries – except least developed countries and small island developing states – shall provide these inventories at least biennially.

On markets the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technologic Advice (SBSTA) will develop and recommend guidance on how to apply “robust accounting” for cooperative approaches, for adoption at the first session of governing body of the Paris Agreement, known as the CMA . Countries will need to be “consistent” with this guidance, but not necessarily follow it strictly. How to determine if a country’s accounting is consistent is not clarified in the Paris agreement, though it will likely be reviewed as part of the new transparency system.

Pending decisions will provide greater clarity on a number of issues. On ITMOs, it will be useful to define the scope of what can be considered a “mitigation outcome” transferred between countries. Under Kyoto, AAUs serve as a unit of account for transferring obligations, but also define the scope of accepted international transfers. In other words, only transfers involving AAUs are accepted when submitting national GHG accounts. Parties will also need to consider whether other forms of co-operation – such as Japan’s Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), which is similar to the CDM, or the bilateral linking of two ETSs –would be considered ITMOs. Transfers involving one or more countries without absolute economy-wide targets could complicate the methodology needed to avoid double counting.

On the accounting system, the CMA could take an active role in facilitating transfers, including through a central registry similar to the ITL. Alternatively, in a more decentralised system, it may require that parties maintain their own accounting – such as double-entry bookkeeping – and rely on the transparency arrangements to provide oversight. The provision referencing ITMOs also requires parties to “promote sustainable development and ensure environmental integrity.” The SBSTA guidelines will need to define these terms and how countries will meet them when undertaking transfers.

Paris “mechanism”

Another accompanying COP decision recommends that the CMA adopt “rules, modalities, and procedures” for the new mechanism at its first session. The parameters for these are: voluntary participation authorised by each party involved; real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change; specific scope of activities; reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would otherwise occur; verification and certification of emission reductions resulting from mitigation activities by designated operational entities; experience gained with and lessons learned from existing mechanisms and approach adopted under the Convention.

This leaves much to be hammered out by governments. A key area to address will be the type of system. The new mechanism may continue to credit at a project level. A Brazilian proposal in Paris envisioned a mechanism similar in scale to the CDM, referred to as an “enhanced CDM,” or “CDM+.” Conversely, in prior discussions for a “new market mechanism” (NMM), both the EU and the Environmental Integrity Group negotiating group have proposed a scaled-up or sector-based crediting mechanism.

The future of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms is also unclear, in particular whether the new mechanism will succeed the CDM and JI, or will sit alongside either of these. The Paris Agreement does not mention the CDM or JI, but notes that the new mechanism should draw on the experience gained from existing mechanisms. Similarly, it is unclear whether units generated under the Kyoto mechanisms will be eligible for compliance after 2020 and if so, whether they will need to be converted to an alternative credit type to conform with credits issues under the new mechanism.

Negotiators may also decide to transfer project methodologies over from the CDM to apply to the new mechanism, discard some of these existing approaches, or move away from project level crediting altogether as noted above. They may also consider other methodologies used outside the UNFCCC. Finally, the Paris Agreement frames sustainable development on a par with GHG mitigation, so parties may require measured sustainable development outcomes to be eligible for crediting.

Parties will need to decide on governance arrangements for the new mechanism. The CDM is managed by an Executive Board of ten government officials, comprising one member from each of the five UN regional groups, two other members from parties included in Annex I, two other members from non-Annex I parties, and one representative of the small island developing states. Similarly, JI has a supervisory committee (JISC) to oversee the verification of projects. The new mechanism could incorporate governance from either of these existing platforms.Guidance on rules and procedures will also need to be clarified. The CDM and JI have existing procedures for developing projects that are ultimately credited. Countries could transfer these rules to the new mechanism or adopt new procedures.

Given the breadth of views across governments on the role of market mechanisms, reaching conclusions on these issues will be challenging. The slow progress since 2011 in the UNFCCC toward a “framework for various approaches” (FVA) and NMM demonstrated the difficulties in gaining consensus on the subject. Nevertheless the importance afforded to international markets by many countries in their NDCs implies there is a strong impetus to find a workable system for international transfers.

Efforts beyond UNFCCC

It is possible that initiatives undertaken outside the UNFCCC will inform efforts within. The Carbon Market Platform established under the G7, for example, is a strategic political dialogue that can complement the UNFCCC in developing guidance on accounting for international transfers. The system that ICAO builds could seek consistency with the Paris Agreement. For example, it would be beneficial if credits used for compliance in the UNFCCC and ICAO are fungible, to prevent project developers choosing between separate customers. It remains to be decided what types of international credits will be used for compliance in the ICAO MBM, but this should take into account the emergence of the new mechanism. In addition, the accounting system used by ICAO should at least be consistent with that used under the Paris system, insofar as this would avoid the double counting of units used for compliance in both ICAO and the UNFCCC.

Unfinished business

Paris reaffirmed carbon markets as an instrument for meeting climate goals. Outside of the agreement itself, groups such as the CPLC are building strong momentum for market approaches as a key component to meeting the mitigation targets set by NDCs. COP21 did not, however, finalise a new system of international carbon markets or cooperative approaches. Accounting for ITMOs and other forms of voluntary cooperation require elaboration and guidance. The role of the new mechanism remains to be negotiated. And if these talks become stalled, as was the case for the FVA/NMM deliberations, interested countries may pursue bottom-up linkages elsewhere rather than continue to search for solutions within the UN climate talks. The pace and extent of progress under the UNFCCC will determine how central a role multilateral platforms will play on these issues in the future and the prospects of a truly global carbon market.

Nations need to agree to reduce aviation emissions

Image courtesy International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

The new Paris Agreement provides a broad global framework to strengthen efforts to address climate change. Now, governments are working toward another agreement on a critical issue Paris doesn’t directly address – reducing greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.

The Paris Agreement, negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), ties together national efforts pledged by more than 180 countries to limit or reduce their own emissions. However, international aviation is inherently a cross-border activity, and a global approach to reducing emissions from aviation is being negotiated separately under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). A new sector-wide agreement is expected this October.

Emissions from the aviation sector comprised 2 percent of global emissions in 2013, but that share is set to expand rapidly by 2050 without policy interventions. In 2010, the aviation industry carried 2.4 billion passengers and 40 million metric tons of goods. By 2050, that could grow to 16 billion passengers and 400 million metric tons of goods.

Submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)

At the 19th session of the Committee of Parties (COP 19) in Warsaw, Poland, countries agreed to submit to the UNFCCC their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to the Paris agreement. These contributions represent targets and actions for the post-2020 period. Below is a list of all INDCs currently submitted to the UNFCCC, including a link to the INDC itself.

To date 161 INDCs from 188 countries, accounting for over 90 percent of global emissions have been submitted, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

A summary of INDCs submitted to the UNFCCC is available here

Afghanistan:

  • There will be a 13.6% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a business as usual (BAU) 2030 scenario, conditional on external support.

Angola:

  • Angola plans to reduce GHG emissions up to 35% unconditionally by 2030 as compared to the BAU scenario (base year 2005). 
  • In addition, it is expected that through a conditional mitigation scenario the country could reduce an additional 15% below BAU emission levels by 2030. 
  • In achieving its unconditional and conditional targets Angola expects to reduce its emissions trajectory by nearly 50% below the BAU scenario by 2030 at overall cost of over USD 14.7 billion.

Argentina:

  • Argentina proposes a goal to reduce year 2030 GHG emissions by 15% with respect to projected BAU emissions for that year.  
  • Argentina could increase its reduction goal to 30% GHG emissions by 2030 compared to projected emissions in the BAU the same year, with international support. [C2ES Translation]

Albania:

  • Commits to reduce CO2 emissions compared  to the baseline scenario in the period of 2016 and 2030 by 11.5 %.

Algeria:

  • Reducing GHG emissions by 7-22% by 2030, compared to a reference scenario (business as usual – BAU), subject to external financial support, technology transfer and development, and capacity building.  The 7% GHG reduction will be realized by national means. [C2ES Translation]

Andorra:

  • A reduction of 37 percent in annual emissions below business as usual levels, as defined in Andorra’s first biennial report to the UNFCCC, by 2030.
  • No contribution from international credits. [C2ES Translation]

Antigua And Barbuda:

  • Unconditional commitments to enhance the established enabling legal, policy and institutional environment for a low carbon emission development pathway to achieve poverty reduction and sustainable development; and, by 2020, to update the Building Code to meet projected impacts of climate change.

Armenia:

  • The Republic of Armenia strives to achieve ecosystem neutral GHG emissions in 2050 (2.07 tons/per capita annual) with the support of adequate (necessary and sufficient) international financial, technological and capacity building assistance.
  • In case of non-exceeding its total emissions quota (633 million tons) set for the period of 2015-2050 Armenia can credit non-utilized reduction to ‘carbon market’, or transfer it to the balance of emissions limitation envisaged for the period of 2050-2100.

Australia:

  • Australia will implement an economy-wide target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
  • Australia reserves the right to adjust our target and its parameters before it is finalized under a new global agreement should the rules and other underpinning arrangements of the agreement differ in a way that materially impacts the definition of our target.

Azerbaijan:

  • By 2030 the Republic of Azerbaijan targets 35% reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990/base year as its contribution to the global climate change efforts. 

Bahamas:

  • A target to achieve a minimum of 30% renewables in the energy mix by 2030 and will allow for a 10% Residential Energy Self Generation Programme within the year; establishment of a permanent forest estate.

Bangladesh:

  • An unconditional contribution to reduce GHG emissions by 5% from Business as Usual (BAU) levels by 2030 in the power, transport and industry sectors, based on existing resources.

Belarus:

  • Belarus commits to reducing GHG emissions 28% below 1990 levels, excluding LULUCF.

Belize:

  • A series of policies and measures in the energy, transport and LULUCF sectors, dependent upon cost effective technology, capacity building and adequate financial support.
  • Belize intends to provide information on adaptation at a later stage.

Benin:

  • The impacts of [emission reduction] efforts are estimated at 120 MtCO2e avoided emissions and sequestering 163 MtCO2e from 2020 to 2030.  Carbon sequestration, through national efforts at reforestation and planting, constitutes the unconditional contribution of the Republic of Benin. 
  • In order to achieve its goals in GHG mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change will need an overall budget of 30 billion USD as a contribution to the government of Benin for the period 2016 to 2030. [C2ES Translation]

Bhutan:

  • Bhutan intends to remain carbon neutral where emission of greenhouse gases will not exceed carbon sequestration by our forests, which is estimated at 6.3 million tons of CO2.

Bolivia:

  • A series of sectoral policies and measures for 2015-2020 and 2021-2030, including additional achievements in those sectors conditional on support from developed countries.

Botswana:

  • Intends to achieve an overall emissions reduction of 15% by 2030, taking 2010 as the base year.
  • Botswana will use market mechanisms under the convention.

Bosnia and Herzegovina:

  • Unconditional contribution is an emission reduction compared to the BAU scenario, of 2% by 2030.
  • Provided that Bosnia-Herzegovina is granted access to international development / financial mechanisms and that the relevant institutions are willing to absorb and cost-effectively use international mechanisms for the above mitigation activities, it will be possible to reduce emissions by approximately 23% in 2030 relative to the baseline scenario.

Brazil:

  • Brazil intends to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 37% below 2005 levels in 2025.
  • Subsequent indicative contribution: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% below 2005 levels in 2030.
  • Brazil’s INDC corresponds to an estimated reduction of 66% in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP (emissions intensity5) in 2025 and of 75% in terms of emissions intensity in 2030, both in relation to 2005.

Brunei:

  • Energy sector: to reduce total energy consumption by 63% by 2035 compared to a Business-As Usual (BAU) scenario; and to increase the share of renewables so that 10% of the total power generation is sourced from renewable energy by 2035 
  • Land Transport sector: to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from morning peak hour vehicle use by 40% by 2035 compared to a business as usual scenario. 
  • Forestry sector: to increase the total gazette forest reserves to 55% of total land area, compared to the current levels of 41%.

Burkina Faso:

  • Unconditional commitment to reduce emissions by 6.6 percent by 2030 from BAU levels
  • A conditional 18.2 percent reduction from BAU levels by 2030

Burundi:

  • Unconditional contribution of 3% reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases compared to 2005 (BAU) by 2030.  
  • Conditional contribution of 20% reduction of emissions compared to 2005 BAU by 2030. [C2ES Translation]

Cambodia:

  • Cambodia intends to undertake unconditional actions in various sectors, the impact of which is expected to be a maximum reduction of 3,100 Gg CO2eq compared to baseline emissions of 11,600 Gg CO2eq by 2030.  
  • Cambodia intends to undertake voluntary and conditional actions to achieve the target of increasing forest cover to 60% of national land area by 2030.

Cameroon:

  • Reducing GHG emissions by 32% compared to a scenario reference for the target year (2035), and conditioned to community support international form of financing, share of capacity enhancements and technology transfer. [C2ES Translation]

Canada:

  • Canada intends to achieve an economy-wide target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.
  • Reaching this ambitious target will require new policies in additional sectors and coordinated continental action in integrated sectors.
  • Canada may also use international mechanisms to achieve the target, subject to robust systems that deliver real and verified emissions reductions.

Central African Republic:

  • Reduce emissions by 5% compared to the BAU reference level (i.e. 5,498.3 kt eq-CO2 of avoided emissions) at the 2030 horizon and 25% (i.e. 33,076.1 kt eq-CO2) at the 2050 horizon, within the framework of conditional implementation. [C2ES Translation]

Chad:

  • Unconditional reduction of 18.2% of the country's emissions compared to the baseline in 2030.
  • The conditional reduction is 71% of the country's emissions by 2030.

Chile:

  • An unconditional commitment from 30 percent below 2007 levels by 2030, in terms of carbon intensity
  • An additional conditional carbon intensity goal of 35 to 45 percent below 2007 levels by 2030

China:

Based on its national circumstances, development stage, sustainable development strategy and international responsibility, China has nationally determined its actions by 2030 as follows:

  • To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;
  • To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level;
  • To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20%; and
  • To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the 2005 level.
  • See the C2ES Fact Sheet: China's Contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Colombia:

  • The Republic of Colombia commits to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% with respect to the projected Business-as-Usual Scenario (BAU) by 2030.
  • Subject to the provision of international support, Colombia could increase its ambition from 20% reduction with respect to BAU to 30% with respect to BAU by 2030.

Congo:

  •  Conditional contribution of at least 48% reduction in emissions compared to BAU in 2025 and 55% in 2035. [C2ES Translation]

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC):

  • A reduction of 17 percent below 2000 levels by 2030. This contribution is conditional on the provision of finance equaling US$12.5 billion for mitigation and US$9.1 billion for adaptation. [C2ES Translation]

Cook Islands:

  • Unconditional: The Cook Islands is committed to a future powered by renewable energy with a targets of 100% of islands transformed from diesel based to renewable sourced electricity by 2020.  Emissions from electricity generation will be reduced 38% below 2006 levels by 2020.
  • Conditional: The Cook Islands will pursue value added activities, which would reduce emissions from electricity generation by a further 43%, totaling an 81% emissions reduction by 2030 (relative to 2006). This further reduction is conditional on receiving external support.

Comoros:

  • The Union of Comoros is committed to reducing its emissions of greenhouse gas by 84% by 2030 compared to emissions in the baseline scenario of the same year.
  • This reduction includes removals sector Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) as well.
  • Comoros has the support of the international contribution to up to US $ 375 million to achieve this objective through the Green Climate Fund and other existing or future financing mechanisms. [C2ES Translation]

Congo:

  •  Conditional contribution of at least 48% reduction in emissions compared to BAU in 2025 and 55% in 2035. [C2ES Translation]

Côte d’Ivoire:

  • An unconditional commitment to Reduce cumulative GHG emissions by 28% below BAU levels by 2030.
  • An additional reduction of 8% (total reduction of GHG emissions by 36% below BAU levels by 2030) is conditional on international support. [C2ES translation]

Cuba:

  • Policies and projects prioritizing the energy and agricultural sectors to 2030.  Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, Cuba will study the possibility of communicating indicative targets in other interim periods. The implementation of the actions identified require international support. [C2ES Translation]

Dominica:

  • Dominica commits to progressively reduce total gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 2014 levels at the following reduction rates: 17.9% by 2020; 39.2% by 2025; and 44.7% by 2030.  
  • This contribution is conditional upon receiving timely access to international climate change financing, technology development and transfer, and capacity building support for priority adaptation and mitigation measures.

Djibouti:

  • With unconditional measures, the Republic of Djibouti agrees to avoid future emissions of 1.8 MtCO2e of GHG reducing its emissions by 40% compared to baseline.
  • The implementation of conditional measures will allow a further reduction of 0.9MtCO2e, or 20% of GHG emissions in 2030 compared to the baseline. The conditional mitigation scenario and allow the Republic of Djibouti to maintain its amount of emissions to a level equivalent to that of 2010. [C2ES Translation]

Dominican Republic:

  • A reduction of 25 percent below 2010 levels by 2030. This reduction is conditional upon favorable and predictable support, feasible climate finance mechanisms, and corrections to the failures of existing market mechanisms.

Ecuador:

  • Ecuador aims to reduce its emissions in the energy sector in 20.4 to 25% relative to BAU.
  • However, Ecuador could increase emission reductions in the energy sector to 37.5 to 45.8% relative to BAU, dependent upon international support. [C2ES Translation]

Egypt:

  • Egypt is setting the foundation for low carbon energy systems through pathways to achieve high CO2 mitigation levels via: 1) diffusion of locally-appropriate low-carbon energy production technologies to reduce energy intensity; 2) mitigation efforts covering all major sources of emissions; and 3) locally appropriate technology transfer and financial flow from industrialized countries to support carbon emission abatement.

El Salvador:

  • Establish a framework of legislation and institutional arrangements to guide economic and social development towards low emissions and adaptation to climate change, with some quantitative targets by 2025 and 2030 in specific sectors. [C2ES Translation]

Equatorial Guinea:

  • Equatorial Guinea's ambition is to reduce emissions 20% by 2030, relative to 2010 levels; to achieve a reduction of 50% by 2050.
  • This is conditional on the support that is favorable, predictable and that climate financing mechanisms become viable and distortions of the existing market mechanisms are corrected. [C2ES Translation]

Eritrea:

  • The government of the State of Eritrea is committed to reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 23.1% in 2020, 30.2 % by 2025 and 39.2% by 2030 visa-vis 2010 levels.
  • If additional support is solicited, it can be further reduced by 36.4 % in 2020, 61.1% by 2015 and 80.6% by 2030.

European Union:

  • A binding target of an at least 40 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. compared to 1990 to be fulfilled jointly, as set out in the conclusions by the European Council of October 2014.

Ethiopia:

  • A reduction of 255 MtCO2e, or 64% below business as usual (BAU) emissions by 2030
  • In the long term, Ethiopia intends to achieve its vision of becoming carbon-neutral, with the mid-term goal of attaining middle-income status.

Gabon:

  • At least 50 percent reduction in emissions from a BAU scenario, excluding the forest biomass sector [C2ES Translation]

Gambia:

  • Excluding LULUCF and for Low Emissions Scenario, emissions will be reduced by about 44.4% in 2025 and 45.4% in 2030.
  • Two unconditional mitigation options in its INDC: Firstly, the use of renewable energy sources in lighting, communication and health facilities, and for lifting water from wells and boreholes. Secondly, the Department of Forestry and local communities will continue to plant and care for trees annually.

Georgia:

  • Georgia plans to unconditionally reduce its GHG emissions by 15% below the Business as usual scenario (BAU) for the year 2030.
  • The 15% reduction target will be increased up to 25% in a conditional manner, subject to a global agreement addressing the importance of technical cooperation, access to low-cost financial resources and technology transfer.

Ghana:

  • Ghana’s emission reduction goal is to unconditionally lower its GHG emissions by 15 percent relative to a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario emission of 73.95MtCO2e 2 by 2030.
  • An additional 30 percent emission reduction is attainable on condition that external support is made available to Ghana to cover the full cost of implementing the mitigation action
  • With this external support, a total emission reduction of 45% below the BUA emission levels can be achieved by 2030.

Guinea:

  • Reduce by 13 percent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2030 as compared to 1994 levels.

Grenada:

  • Grenada commits to reducing its Greenhouse gas emissions by 30% of 2010 by 2025, with an indicative reduction of 40% of 2010 by 2030.

Guatemala:

  • Guatemala plans to achieve a reduction of 11.2% of total GHG emissions in the base year 2005 projected to 2030 [C2ES Translation]

Guineau-Bissau:

  • Establish and schedule a new forestry policy, conduct studies on the energy potential of the country and establish a legal framework through a national strategy for long-term low-carbon development.  
  • Meeting the recommended goal requires an overall investment not inferior to 200 million USD by 2020 and 500 million between 2020 and 2030 of foreign aid [C2ES Translation]

Guyana:

  • Guyana proposes policies, measures and actions, both conditional and conditional
  • There are unconditional and conditional proposals for the forestry and energy sectors.

Haiti:

  • Unconditional contribution of 5% emissions reductions by 2030 relative to 2000.  
  • Conditional contribution of 26% emissions reductions by 2030 relative to 2000. [C2ES Translation]

Honduras:

  • 15% reduction in emissions compared to BAU 2030 for all sectors contained in this BAU scenario.
  • This commitment is conditional upon favorable, predictable support and if a climate financing mechanisms is made viable.
  • Additionally, the Republic of Honduras is committed, as a sectoral target, afforestation / reforestation of 1 million hectares of forest by 2030. [C2ES Translation]

 Iceland:

  • Iceland aims to be part of a collective delivery by European countries to reach a target of 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
  • A precise commitment for Iceland within such collective delivery has yet to be determined, and is dependent on an agreement with the European Union and its Member States and possibly other countries.
  • In the event that an agreement on collective delivery is not reached, Iceland will determine a national target by other methods and communicate it to the UNFCCC.

India:

  • To reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level.
  • To achieve about 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030, with the help of transfer of technology and low cost international finance including from Green Climate Fund (GCF).
  • To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

Indonesia:

  • Unconditional reduction of 29% of GHGs against a BAU scenario by 2030.
  • An additional 12% reduction is conditional on technology transfer, capacity building, results for payment, and access to finance.

Iran:

  • Unconditional target of reducing GHGs emission in 2030 by 4% compared to the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario.
  • Conditional target is to mitigate additional GHGs emission up to 8% against the BAU scenario (i.e. 12% in total).

Israel:

  • Israel intends to achieve an economy-wide unconditional target of reducing its per capita greenhouse gas emissions to 7.7 tCO2e by 2030 which constitutes a reduction of 26% below the level in 2005 of 10.4 tCO2e per capita. An interim target of 8.8 tCO2e per capita is expected by 2025. 

Kyrgyz Republic:

  • Kyrgyz Republic will reduce GHG emissions in the range of 11.49 - 13.75% below BAU in 2030. Additionally, with international support Kyrgyz Republic could implement the mitigation measures to achieve total reduction in the range of 29.00 - 30.89% below BAU in 2030.
  • Kyrgyz Republic will reduce GHG emissions in the range of 12.67 - 15.69% below BAU in 2050. Additionally, with international support Kyrgyz Republic could implement the mitigation measures to achieve total reduction in the range of 35.06 - 36.75% below BAU in 2050.

Jamaica

  • Jamaica’s intended nationally determined contribution will mitigate the equivalent of 1.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030 versus the BAU scenario. This is a reduction of 7.8% of emissions versus BAU.  
  • Jamaica will conditionally increase its ambition to a reduction of GHG emissions of 10% below the BAU scenario, subject to the provision of international support.

Japan:

  • Japan’s INDC towards post-2020 GHG emission reductions is at the level of a reduction of 26.0% by fiscal year (FY) 2030 compared to FY 2013 (25.4% reduction compared to FY 2005) (approximately 1.042 billion t-CO2 eq. as 2030 emissions)
  • Removals by LULUCF sector are accounted in line with approaches equivalent to those under the Kyoto Protocol.
  • The Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) is not included as a basis of the bottom-up calculation of Japan’s emission reduction target, but the amount of emission reductions and removals acquired by Japan under the JCM will be appropriately counted as Japan’s reduction.

Jordan:

  • This contribution of GHGs reduction will be unconditionally fulfilled to 1.5 % compared to a business as usual scenario level.
  • However, Jordan, conditionally and subject to availability of international financial aid and support to means of implementation, commits to reduce its GHGs emissions at least an additional 12.5 % by 2030.

Kazakhstan:

  • Unconditional target: A 15% reduction in GHG emissions by 31 December 2030 compared to the base year
  • Conditional target: A 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 31 December 2030 compared to the base year, subject to additional international investments, access to low carbon technologies transfer mechanism, green climate funds and flexible mechanism for country with economy in transition.

Kiribati:

  • Kiribati commits to reduce emissions by: 13.7% by 2025 and 12.8% by 2030 compared to a BaU projection.

Republic of Korea:

  • Korea plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37% from the business-as-usual (BAU, 850.6 MtCO2eq) level by 2030 across all economic sectors.
  • Korea will partly use carbon credits from international market mechanisms to achieve its 2030 mitigation target, in accordance with relevant rules and standards.

Kenya:

  • Kenya seeks to abate its GHG emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to the BAU scenario of 143 MtCO2eq; and in line with its sustainable development agenda.
  • This is also subject to international support in the form of finance, investment, technology development and transfer, and capacity building.

Lao (People’s Democratic Republic):

  • A list of reforestation, RE, rural electrification, transportation NAMAs, and hydroelectricity plans and actions to be implemented, subject to the provision of international support.

Lebanon:

  • An unconditional contribution of 15 percent GHG emission compared to the BAU scenario in 2030.  
  • Conditional contribution of 30 percent GHG emission reduction compared to the BAU scenario in 2030.

Liechtenstein

  • Liechtenstein aims at a reduction of greenhouse gases by 40 % compared to 1990 by 2030.
  • The assumptions underlying Liechtenstein’s INDC are based on the possibility to achieve emission reductions abroad which may be accounted towards
  • Liechtenstein’s reduction target in 2030.2 However, primary focus will be given on domestic emission reductions.
  • The reduction target will be subject to the approval of the Liechtenstein Parliament.

Lesotho:

  • Lesotho is committed to reduce unconditionally 10% of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a Business-as-usual (BAU) scenario.
  • A conditional target is set at 35% below BAU levels by 2030.

Liberia:

  • Target is to reduce GHGs by at least 10% by 2030 from BAU levels.  The long-term strategy of Liberia is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.  
  • Total GHG emissions can be reduced using all strategies from BAU trajectory by 15% in 2030.  
  • The implementation of the mitigation interventions will require availability of financial resources, technology development and transfer, and capacity building from the international community.

Madagascar:

  • In 2030, Madagascar aims to reduce approximately 30 MtCO2 of its emissions of GHG, representing 14% of national emissions, compared to the BAU scenario, with projections based of GHG inventory from year 2000 to 2010.
  • Total increase in GHG absorption is expected at 32%, compared to the BAU scenario.
  • However, these objectives remain conditioned by financial support, which will be received from global partners (conditional contributions).

Malawi:

  • Malawi's targets reflect a consolidation and expansion of various climate change related initiatives that have been derived from policies, programmes, and projects.
  • Some are unconditional, whereas others are conditional on international support.

Malaysia:

  • reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 relative to the emissions intensity of GDP in 2005. This consist of 35% on an unconditional basis.
  • A further 10% is condition upon receipt of climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building from developed countries.

Maldives:

  • Maldives intends to take actions and undertakings to reduce unconditionally 10% of its GHG emissions (under a BAU) by the year 2030.
  • These actions and undertakings could be scaled-up to 24% in a conditional manner, in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by availability of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building.

Mali:

  • Mali sets sector-by-sector targets versus a BAU scenario of 29 percent (agriculture), 31 percent (energy) and 21 percent (forestry) by 2030.

Mauritania:

  • The Islamic Republic of Mauritania intends to contribute to the Paris climate agreement by reducing greenhouse gas emissions expected in 2030 by 22.3% compared to Business As Usual (BAU).
  • -12% of this potential emission reductions can be achieved by the means of Mauritania (unconditional share of contribution.)
  • 88% of the contribution, corresponding to the share of emissions reduction conditional on international support (conditional share of contribution.) [C2ES Translation]

Mauritius:

  • The Republic of Mauritius imperatively needs international technical and financial support to enable it to abate its greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, by the year 2030, relative to the business as usual scenario.

Marshall Islands:

  • Marshall Islands commits to a quantified economy-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 32% below 2010 levels by 2025.
  • Marshall Islands communicates, as an indicative target, its intention to reduce its emissions of GHGs to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030.

Mozambique:

  • Implementation of various policies and program actions.  Estimation of total reduction of about 76,5 MtCO2eq in the period from 2020 to 2030, with 23,0 MtCO2eq by 2024 and 53,4 MtCO2eq from 2025 to 2030.
  • Mozambique is willing to participate in the market mechanisms to be established.

Mexico:

  • Mexico is committed to reduce unconditionally 25% of its Greenhouse Gases and Short Lived Climate Pollutants emissions (below BAU) for the year 2030. This commitment implies a reduction of 22% of GHG and a reduction of 51% of Black Carbon. 
  • This commitment implies a net emissions peak starting from 2026, decoupling GHG emissions from economic growth: emissions intensity per unit of GDP will reduce by around 40% from 2013 to 2030. 
  • The 25% reduction commitment expressed above could increase up to a 40% in a conditional manner, subject to a global agreement addressing important topics including international carbon price, carbon border adjustments, technical cooperation, access to low-cost financial resources and technology transfer, all at a scale commensurate to the challenge of global climate change.  
  • Within the same conditions, GHG reductions could increase up to 36%, and Black Carbon reductions to 70% in 2030.

Moldova:

  • The Republic of Moldova intends to achieve an economy-wide unconditional target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 64-67 per cent below its 1990 level in 2030 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 67 per cent.
  • The reduction commitment expressed above could be increased up to 78 per cent below 1990 level conditional to, a global agreement addressing important topics including low-cost financial resources, technology transfer, and technical cooperation.

Morocco:

  • An unconditional target of a 13 % reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a business as usual (BAU) scenario.
  • Conditionally, Morocco can achieve additional 19 % reduction achievable under certain conditions, which would bring the total GHG reduction to 32 % below BAU emission levels by 2030.
  • The conditional target requires an overall investment estimated at USD 45 billion between 2015 and 2030, of which 35 USD billion is conditional upon:
    • Access to new sources of finance and enhanced support, compared to that received over the past years, to be mobilized through new climate finance mechanisms, such as the Green Climate Fund;
    • The conclusion of a legally-binding agreement under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

Monaco:

  • With a view to the adoption of a legally binding agreement in Paris in December 2015, the Principality of Monaco wishes to contribute to the collective effort by adopting an objective 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to the base year 1990.
  • The commitment can be viewed as a ten year-target, or two successive five year periods. The interim target is 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2025. [C2ES translation]

Mongolia:

  • The expected mitigation impact of these policies and measures will be a 14% reduction in total national GHG emissions excluding Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) by 2030, compared to the projected emissions under a business as usual scenario.

Montenegro:

  • Montenegro’s contribution to the international effort to avoid dangerous climate change is expressed in 30 % emission reduction by 2030 compared to the 1990 base year.

Myanmar:

  • Provided a list of policy actions in the energy and forestry sectors.
  • The information required to estimate GHG emissions was collected and an estimate produced. However, given the deadline and the current available data, it was decided not to include the estimate in the INDC, as deemed not sufficiently reliable.
  • Further analysis to quantify the GHG emission will be conducted as a result of the actions and strategies.

Nauru:

  • Unconditional contribution includes a secured funding of US$5 million for implementation of a 0.6 MW solar PV system
  • Conditional on external support, Nauru will replace a substantial part of electricity generation with the existing diesel operated plants with a large scale grid connected solar photovoltaic (PV) system with an estimated cost of US$ 42 million.

Nepal:

  • By 2050, Nepal will achieve 80% electrification through renewable energy sources having appropriate energy mix. Nepal will also reduce its dependency on fossil fuels by 50%.
  • Achievement of the following targets through its National Rural and Renewable Energy Programme (NRREP)
  • Maintaining 40% of the total area of the country under forest cover and forest productivity;
  • By 2025, Nepal will strive to decrease the rate of air pollution through proper monitoring of sources of air pollutants like wastes, old and unmaintained vehicles, and industries.

New Zealand:

  • New Zealand commits to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.
  • New Zealand’s INDC will remain provisional pending confirmation of the approaches to be taken in accounting for the land sector, and confirmation of access to carbon markets. New Zealand will participate actively in discussions on the land sector with our negotiating partners, both in the lead-up to and after COP 21, and will confirm details of the accounting approach we will take prior to or upon ratification of the Paris agreement.
  • In order to achieve domestic reductions and to do so at an affordable cost, we have identified a need for cost-effective mitigation technology, and in particular that our continuing investment in agricultural research delivers results that can be commercialized within the time period covered by this contribution.

Niger:

  • Unconditional reduction of 2.5% (BAU 2020) and 3.5% (2030).  Conditional Reduction of 25% (BAU 2020) and 34.6% (2030, about GgCO2Eq 33.400). [C2ES Translation]

Nigeria:

  • An unconditional contribution to reduce emissions 20 percent below BAU projections by 2030
  • Conditional on external support, Nigeria will reduce emissions 45 percent below BAU projections by 2030.

Niue:

  • Unconditionally, Niue will achieve a 38% share of renewable energy of total electricity generation by 2020.  
  • Conditional on support, Niue could increase its contribution to an 80% share of renewable energy of total electricity generation, or to even higher levels, by 2025.

Norway:

  • Norway is committed to a target of an at least 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The emission reduction target will be developed into an emissions budget covering the period 2021-2030. 
  • Norway intends to fulfil this commitment through a collective delivery with the EU and its Member States.  
  • In the event that there is no agreement on a collective delivery with the EU, Norway will fulfil the commitment individually. The ambition level will remain the same in this event.

Oman:

  • Oman will control its expected GHG emissions growth by 2% to be 88714 Gg during the period from 2020 - 2030

Pakistan:

  • Pakistan is committed to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible subject to affordability, provision of international climate finance, transfer of technology and capacity building.  As such Pakistan will only be able to make specific commitments once reliable data on our peak emission levels is available.

Palau:

  • Energy sector specific targets of 22% energy sector emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2025, a 45% Renewable Energy target by 2025 and a 35% Energy Efficiency target by 2025.

Paraguay:

  • Unilateral Target of 10% reduction of projected emissions by 2030.
  • Conditional Target of 20% reduction of projected emissions by 2030.

Papua New Guinea:

  • The main mitigation contribution for PNG would be in terms of an indicative replacement of fossil fuelled electricity generation with renewable energy sources.
  • This could be accomplished at a rate determined by the availability of external funding.

Peru:

  • The Peruvian INDC envisages a reduction of emissions equivalent to 30% in relation to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of the projected Business as Usual scenario (BAU) in 2030.
  • The Peruvian State considers that a 20% reduction will be implemented through domestic investment and expenses, from public and private resources (non-conditional proposal), and the remaining 10% is subject to the availability of international financing1 and the existence of favorable conditions (conditional proposal).

Philippines:

  • The Philippines intends to undertake GHG (CO2e) emissions reduction of about 70% by 2030 relative to its BAU scenario of 2000-2030, conditional on the extent of financial resources, including technology development & transfer, and capacity building, that will be made available to the Philippines.

Qatar:

  • Economic diversification and adaptation actions with mitigation co-benefits to be undertaken from 2021 to 2030.

Russia:

  • Limiting anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year 2030 might be a long-term indicator, subject to the maximum possible account of absorbing capacity of forests.

Samoa:                           

  • Samoa is committed to reducing its GHG emissions from the Electricity sub sector through the adoption of a 100% Renewable energy target for electricity generation through to the year 2025.

San Marino:

  • San Marino intends to reduce emissions 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Sao Tome and Principe:

  • STP would conditionally be able to contribute to the reduction of Greenhouse Gases by about 57 ktCO2eq, which approximately corresponds to a 24% national emission reduction by 2030 related to 2005.

Senegal:

  • Under the unconditional INDC emission reductions relative to their projected path are 3%, 4% and 5% respectively in 2020, 2025 and 2030.
  • With the conditional INDC, reductions of expected emission are of the order of 7%, 15% and 21% over the same years. [C2ES Translation]

Serbia:

  • Reduce emissions 9.8 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

Seychelles:

  • The Republic of Seychelles will reduce its economy-wide absolute GHG emissions by 122.5 ktCO2e (21.4%) in 2025 and estimated 188 ktCO2e in 2030 (29.0%) relative to baseline emissions.

Sierra Leone:

  • Intends to maintain the emission levels of Sierra Leone relatively low close to the world average of 7.58 MtCO2e) by 2035 or neutral by 2050 by reducing her carbon footprint and by following green growth pathways in all economic sectors. 

Solomon Islands:

  • 12% below 2015 level by 2025 and 30% below 2015 level by 2030 compared to a BaU projection.
  • Solomon Islands can conditionally contribute a further: 27% reduction in GHG emissions by 2025; and 45% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, compared to a BaU projection.
  • With appropriate international assistance, Solomon Islands can reduce its emissions by more than 50% by 2050.

Somalia:

  • Policy, plans and mitigation and adaptation projects related to land use, water, increasing resilience, renewable energy, and coastal resource management.

South Africa:

  • South Africa’s mitigation component of its INDC moves from a “deviation from business-as-usual” form of commitment and takes the form of a peak, plateau and decline GHG emissions trajectory range. South Africa’s emissions by 2025 and 2030 will be in a range between 398 and 614 Mt CO2e, as defined in national policy.
  • South Africa will use five-year periods of implementation at the national level, specifically, 2016-2020 focused on developing and demonstrating the above mix of policies and measures in order to meet South Africa’s Cancun pledge, and the periods 2021-2025 and 2026-2030 for this INDC. This level of effort will enable South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions to peak between 2020 and 2025, plateau for approximately a decade and decline in absolute terms thereafter.

South Sudan:

  • South Sudan aims to undertake the policies and actions in following sectors: energy generation and use; Land Use and Land Use Change; and Transport, to address its future emissions that are likely to result from growth strategies. These efforts are contingent on availability of technical assistance to develop the necessary regulations, policies, and standards as well as financial support for investing in low carbon options.

Singapore:

  • Singapore communicates that it intends to reduce its Emissions Intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilize its emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.
  • Singapore intends to achieve the mitigation objectives under its INDC through domestic efforts, but will continue to study the potential of international market mechanisms.

Sri Lanka:  

  • Greenhouse gas emissions cut of 7 percent from business as usual by 2030, or up to 23 percent with international support.

St. Kitts and Nevis:

  • An emissions reduction target of 22% and 35% of St. Kitts and Nevis GHG emissions projected in the business as usual (BAU) scenario for 2025 and 2030 respectively.
  • St. Kitts and Nevis supports the inclusion of the International Carbon Markets and any other Market Mechanisms in a post-2020 agreement on climate change and any future emission reductions pre-2020, should be accounted as part of our contributions.

St. Lucia:

  • 16% reduction measured against BAU projection for 2025 (reduction of 121 GgCO2-eq); 23% reduction measured against BAU projection for 2030 (188 GgCO2-eq), which is conditional.
  • National level market-based instruments, such as cap-and-trade emission trading schemes and offsetting, are crucial to price carbon emissions and keep the costs of mitigation in Saint Lucia low.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines:

  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines intends to achieve an unconditional, economy-wide reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 22% compared to its business as usual (BAU) scenario by 2025.
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines supports the inclusion of the International Carbon Markets and mechanisms such as the CDM in a post-2020 agreement on climate change including the use of the mitigation outcome pre-2020.
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines considers that certain low emission development options mentioned in this INDC, or additional actions, could be entirely or partially funded by international carbon markets.

Suriname:

  • Mitigation efforts will be made in the energy sector by the use of renewable energy sources. With regard to the low lying coastal zone, mitigation actions are concentrated on its conservation and sustainable use.

Swaziland:

  • Mitigation actions, including: 1) Developing a robust national GHG inventory, a credible and a comprehensive MRV system. 2) Doubling the share of RE in the national energy mix.  3) Introducing the use of a 10% ethanol blend in petrol for use in all vehicles. 4) Phasing out the use of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 gases.
  • The implementation of Swaziland’s INDC is conditional upon appropriate support in the form of finance, technical assistance and capacity building.  Depending on the level of support received, Swaziland will update its INDC accordingly.

Switzerland:

  • 50 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, corresponding to an average reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent over the period 2021-2030.
  • By 2025, a reduction of greenhouse gases by 35 percent compared to 1990 levels is anticipated.
  • Carbon credits from international mechanisms will partly be used.
  • The INDC is subject to approval by Parliament.

Tajikistan:

  • A flexible target, not exceeding 80-90% of the 1990 level by 2030, which amounts to 1.7-2.2 tons in CO2 equivalent per capita, has been determined as the country’s contribution to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission reductions.  
  • A conditional target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the Republic of Tajikistan 65- 75% of the 1990 level by 2030, which amounts to 1.2-1.7 tons in CO2 equivalent per capita.

Tanzania:

  • Tanzania will reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy wide between 10-20% by 2030 relative to the BAU scenario of 138 - 153 Million tones of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e).

Thailand:

  • Thailand intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from the projected business-as-usual (BAU) level by 2030.
  • The level of contribution could increase up to 25 percent, subject to adequate and enhanced access to technology development and transfer, financial resources and capacity building support.
  • This target will only be achieved by Sierra Leone with the availability of international support This would require substantial donor support estimated to about $900 million.
  • Sierra Leone intends to also present an intensity based reduction target by 25 - 35 percent, by 2050 in phases (2020-2030, 2030-2050) compared to 1990, including the use of international credits.

Togo:

  • Unconditional contribution of 11.14% reduction of emissions by 2030 below 2010 levels.  
  • Conditional contribution of 31.14% reduction by 2030 below 2010 levels. [C2ES Translation]

Tonga:

  • A series of sectoral commitments, including:  50% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020; 70% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2030; Improve Energy efficiency through reduction of electricity line losses to 9 percent by 2020 (from a baseline of 18 percent in 2010); to double the 2015 number of Marine Protected Areas by 2030; Sector Emission Reduction Targets: Transport, Agriculture, Environment Friendly Waste Management and Reforestation.

Tunisia:

  • Tunisia's unconditional contribution corresponds to a 13 per cent reduction in carbon intensity, with 2010 as the base year.
  • The conditional contribution allows for an additional decrease of 28 per cent in carbon intensity, with 2010 as the base year.

Turkey:

  • Up to 21 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the Business as Usual (BAU) level by 2030.  
  • Turkey aims to use carbon credits from international market mechanisms to achieve its 2030 mitigation target in a cost effective manner and in accordance with the relevant rules and standards.

Turkmenistan:

  • Unconditional contribution to Stabilize or begin reducing GHG emissions by 2030.  
  • If financial and technological support is provided by developed countries, Turkmenistan could achieve zero growth in emissions and even reduce them up to 2030.

Tuvalu:

  • Tuvalu commits to reduction of emissions of green-house gases from the electricity generation (power) sector, by 100% - i.e almost zero emissions by 2025.  Tuvalu’s indicative quantified economy-wide target for a reduction in total emissions of GHGs from the entire energy sector to 60% below 2010 levels by 2025.

Trinidad & Tobago:

  • Trinidad and Tobago will commit to unconditionally reduce its public transportation emissions by 30 percent or one million, seven hundred thousand tonnes (1,700,000) CO2e compared to 2013 levels by December 31, 2030.
  • Conditional target: Trinidad and Tobago's aim is to achieve a reduction objective in overall emissions from the three sectors by 15 percent by 2030 from BAU, which in absolute terms is an equivalent of one hundred and three million tonnes (103,000,000) of CO2e.

Uganda:

  • Mitigation measures and activities to be accelerated between 2016 and 2030 that could result in approximately 22 percent reduction of overall national GHG emissions in 2030 compared to the BAU project of 77.3 MtCO2eq/year in 2030.

Ukraine:

  • Ukraine’s emissions will not exceed 60% of 1990 GHG emissions level in 2030.
  • Ukraine will participate actively in the development of existing international market mechanisms and implementation of new ones.

United Arab Emirates:

  • UAE will pursue a portfolio of actions, including an increase of clean energy to 24% of the total energy mix by 2021.

United States:

Uruguay:

  • A series of sectoral targets to achieve net CO2 removal by 2030; additional measures for other gases.
  • Uruguay will communicate its definitive Nationally Determined Contribution once the UNFCCC has set forth the rules to apply and implementation agreements have been finalized.

Vanuatu:

  • A 100% renewable energy target by 2030, which will reduce energy sector emissions 30 percent from BAU.

Yemen:

  • Unconditionally, a 1 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a business as usual (BAU) scenario.
  • An additional 13 % reduction achievable under certain conditions, which would bring the total GHG reduction to 14 percent below BAU emission levels by 2030.

Zambia:

  • It is expected from this scenario that by the end of 2030, estimated 38,000 Gg CO2eq could be mitigated, compared to 20,000 Gg CO2eq under the domestic efforts with limited international support.
  • This translates into a reduction potential of 25% and 47% against 2010 as the base year for the domestic efforts with limited international support and domestic efforts with substantial international support respectively.

Zimbabwe:

  • The Mitigation Contribution for Zimbabwe is set conditionally as 33% below the projected BAU energy emissions per capita by 2030

 

Bob Perciasepe on the Biennial Report on U.S. climate goals

Statement of Bob Perciasepe
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

December 31, 2015

On the State Department's Second Biennial Report to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change estimating how existing and additional policy measures will help the U.S. toward its 2020 and 2025 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

“The new U.S biennial report lays out a credible and commonsense pathway toward meeting the country’s greenhouse gas targets for 2020 and 2025. It shows how the combined efforts of governments at all levels, working closely with the private sector, can achieve our greenhouse gas goals while sustaining strong economic growth.

This report is an example the kind of transparency the new Paris Agreement is meant to deliver — countries laying out for all to see the policies through which they intend to meet the goals they’ve pledged to the international community. An important part of the task ahead is fleshing out the details of how the Paris Agreement will also hold countries accountable for progress in implementing those policies.”

--

Contact: Laura Rehrmann, rehrmannl@c2es.org or 703-516-0621

About C2ES: The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization promoting strong policy and action to address our climate and energy challenges. Learn more at www.c2es.org.

How the Paris Agreement will bring transparency to climate action

COP 21 in Paris (Image Courtesy UNFCCC Via Flickr).

A central issue in the Paris climate talks was strengthening “transparency” requirements to hold countries accountable for their commitments. This means closer scrutiny of steps taken by developing countries, in particular, and many are understandably nervous.

But in presentations in the sidelines of the negotiations, two developing countries – Singapore and Chile – said their early experiences with the existing transparency system were less onerous than they’d feared. Their key message: You learn by doing.

The existing transparency system, established in 2010 in Cancún, consists of two parallel processes: one for developed countries, and a less stringent one for developing countries. Under both processes, countries submit biennial reports describing the steps they’re taking to meet their emission goals. These reports are then considered by technical experts and by other parties.

The Paris Agreement calls for replacing these processes with a single system requiring all countries to work toward the same standards of transparency and accountability.

Although the agreement promises support to help developing countries build the capacity to meet these standards, many worry the new requirements will be burdensome. Others are wary of being judged harshly, particularly when they have had little experience closely tracking their emissions or undergoing international review.

So far under the current system, 16 developing countries have submitted biennial reports describing the efforts they are taking to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. 

COP 21 Summary

Image: 
Text: 
Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on December 12 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two-decade-old global climate effort.
Text Location: 
Bottom

Paris Climate Conference - COP 21

In a landmark agreement that charts a fundamentally new course in the two-decade-old global climate effort, governments meeting in Paris adopted a pragmatic deal that holds countries accountable and builds ambition over time.

The Paris Agreement

C2ES Resources

C2ES Events in Paris

December 3
Press Briefing with Bob Perciasepe and Elliot Diringer.
Watch video

December 4
The American Business Act on Climate Pledge
Leaders from the White House, C2ES and American corporations discuss how U.S. businesses are leading the way in climate action and investment.
Watch video

C2ES Blog Posts

Syndicate content