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

 

Comparison of INDCs

COMPARISON TABLE OF SUBMITTED INDCs (AS OF DECEMBER 21, 2015)

Major-emitting countries are listed first, according to their contribution to total annual global GHG emissions.  Countries accounting for less than 0.1 percentage of global emissions are listed alphabetically.

To date 160 INDCs from 187 countries, accounting for over 90 percent of global emissions have been submitted.[1]

 

Country

Base Level

Reduction Target

Target Year

Sectors and Gases

Use of international markets?

Land-use inclusion/accounting method:

China

 

 

2005

Emissions peaking

 

60-65 percent (carbon intensity)

2030 (or before)

 

2030

Not Specified

Not Specified

Target to increase forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the 2005 level; accounting methodology not specified.

United States

2005

26-28 percent

2025

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

All of the IPCC Sectors ( Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste)

No

Yes, using a “net-net” approach

EU

1990

40 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste

No

Policy on land-use accounting to be decided prior to 2020

India

2005

33-35 percent (carbon intensity)

2030

Not specified

Not mentioned

Not specified

Russia

1990

25-30 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste

No

Target depends on the “maximum absorption capacity of forests.” – implies it will be included.

Japan

2005

2013

25.4 percent

26 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Agriculture, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Waste

The amount of emission reductions and removals acquired by Japan under the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) will be appropriately counted as Japan’s reduction.

Removals by LULUCF sector are accounted in line with approaches equivalent to those under the Kyoto Protocol.

Korea

Business as Usual (BAU)

37 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6,

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture and waste

Will use market mechanisms partly, in accordance with relevant rules and standards.

A decision will be made at a later stage on whether to include greenhouse gas emissions and sinks of the land sector as well as the method for doing so.

Canada

2005

30 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

All of the IPCC Sectors ( Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste)

Yes

Yes, using a net-net approach; use a “production approach” to account for harvested wood products; exclude emissions from natural disturbances

Iran

BAU

4 percent (unconditional)

12 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Not specified

Will participate in market mechanisms

Land-sector not included

Saudi Arabia

Unconditionally contribute policy measures and actions which will achieve an estimated 130 MtCO2e reduction annually by 2030.

CO2, CH4

Energy

Not mentioned

Land-use not included

Brazil

2005

37 percent

43 percent (indicative)

2025

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6,

 

Any transfer of units resulting achieved in Brazil subject to prior and formal consent by the Federal Government.

Will not recognize units originating from Brazil established outside Convention, Kyoto Protocol, or Paris Agreement

Inventory based approach for estimating and accounting, as appropriate, removals in accordance with applicable IPCC guidelines.

 

Mexico

BAU

25 percent (unconditional)

40 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, Black Carbon.

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste

Conditional target contingent on fully functional bilateral, regional and international market mechanisms

Land-use included; accounting methodology not specified

Indonesia

BAU

29 percent (unconditional)

41 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste

Will meet its unconditional commitment regardless of market mechanisms, but Indonesia would welcome them.

Inventory based on 2006 IPCCC guidelines, and IPCCC guidelines for greenhouse gases from land-use sector.

Australia

2005

26-28 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

UNFCCC inventory reporting categories using a net-net approach.

South Africa

N/A

Emissions peaking

(398 - 614 Mt CO2e)

2025

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

AFOLU included. The greater uncertainty in AFOLU emissions should be noted, as well as the intention to reduce uncertainty over time.

Turkey

BAU

21 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes and products use, agriculture, land use land-use change and forestry, waste

Turkey aims to use carbon credits from international market mechanisms to achieve its 2030 mitigation target

IPCC 2006 Guidelines and IPCCC 2013 guidelines for wetlands

Ukraine

1990

40 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Ukraine will participate actively in existing and new international market mechanisms.

An approach to including the land use, will be defined no later than 2020

Thailand

BAU

20 percent (unconditional)

25 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, waste

Continue to explore the potential of bilateral, regional and international market mechanisms

Land-use and forestry will be considered later

Kazakhstan

1990

15 percent (unconditional)

25 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Energy, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Kazakhstan supports inclusion of market based mechanisms recognized by the UNFCCC.

Will consider discounting international units to ensure net emission reductions.

IPCC 2006 Guidelines and IPCCC 2013 guidelines for wetlands and under the Kyoto Protocol.

Egypt

A series of policies and measures across sectors, including energy subsidy phase out, requiring international support to implement

Not specified

Energy

A national market for carbon trading may be established. This national market may further be developed into a regional market.

Land-use not included

Malaysia

2005

35 percent (emissions intensity; unconditional)

45 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

2006 IPCCC Guidelines from 2017 onwards

Argentina

BAU

15 percent (unconditional)

30 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Energy, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

IPCC 1996 Guidelines and national GHG inventories

Venezuela

BAU

20 percent (conditional)

2030

Not Specified

Transport, health, biological diversity, Forestry

No

Land-use included, accounting methodology not specified.

United Arab Emirates

A series of policies and actions, including an increase of clean energy to 24 percent of the total energy mix by 2021

Not specified

Energy, transport, waste

Not mentioned

Land-sector not included

Vietnam

BAU

8 percent (unconditional)

25 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Energy, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

IPCC Guidelines and national GHG inventories

Pakistan

Pakistan will seek to peak its emissions, subject to domestic capacity and international support, but will only put forward specific commitments when better data is available.

Not specified

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Algeria

BAU

7 percent (unconditional)

up to 22 percent
(conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes and product use, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Philippines

BAU

70 percent

2030

Not specified

Not Mentioned

2006 IPCC Guidelines

Chile

2007

30 percent (carbon intensity) (unconditional)

35-45 percent (carbon intensity) (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs

Energy, industrial processes and uses, solvent use, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Does not rule out the use of market-based mechanisms to fulfil its INDC

Land-use included; accounting methodology not specified

Qatar

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

Not specified

Not mentioned

Land-sector not included

Israel

2005 (10.4tCO2e per capita)

8.8tCO2e per capita

7.7tCO2e per capita

2025


2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Energy, transport, industrial processes, buildings, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use not included

Belarus

1990

28 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Power, industrial processes, solvent use, agriculture, waste

No

Land-use not included

Oman

A series of sector-specific emissions reductions and new legislation to support technologies by 2030.

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs

Energy, industrial processes, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use not included

Colombia

BAU

20 percent (unconditional)

30 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

All of the IPCC Sectors ( Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste)

Colombia will explore the use of market instruments

 

The AFOLU sector (agriculture, forestry and other land uses) is included in the economy-wide target.

Nigeria

BAU

20 percent (unconditional)

45 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, transport, agriculture, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Turkmenistan

Stabilization or decrease in GHG emissions by 2030, depending on level of international support

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

IPCC 2003 Good Practice Guidelines for LULUCF

Bangladesh

BAU

5 percent (unconditional)

15 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Power, transport, industry

Does not rule out the use of international market-based mechanisms in line with agreed modalities and accounting rules.

Land-use not included

Morocco

BAU

13 percent

32 percent (Conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial, agriculture, LULUCF and waste

Does not exclude possibility of using market mechanisms to meet its INDC

Land-use included; accounting methodology not specified

Singapore

 

2005

 

Emissions Peaking

36 percent (emissions intensity)

 

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Intends to achieve INDC through domestic efforts, but will continue to study the potential of international market mechanisms.

Singapore has begun monitor and report carbon storage and carbon fluxes related to land use change and forestry.

Peru

BAU

20 percent (unconditional)

30 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Energy, industrial processes and product use, transport, land-use and forestry, waste

Not currently under consideration for compliance with Peru’s INDC. However, Peru is considering selling international credits.

2010 GHG inventory used as basis for forestry projections.

Serbia

1990

9.8 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

“In accordance with IPCC 2006 guidelines and 2013 KP supplement”

Not specified

Not specified

Switzerland

1990

35 percent

50 percent

2025

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF); waste

Yes, including CDM

Kyoto accounting methodology will be used.

Trinidad and Tobago

BAU

30 percent (unconditional; public transport only)

15 percent (conditional; total GHG emissions)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Transportation, power generation and industry

Not mentioned

Forestry sector excluded

Norway

1990 emissions

At least 40 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste

No, if collective agreement with the EU is in place.

Yes, if Norway fulfils commitment individually

Dependent on EU decision on land-use. If implemented individually, will include land-use

Ecuador

BAU

20.4–25 percent (unconditional)

37.5-45.8 percent (conditional)

2025

Not specified

Energy, forestry

Not mentioned

Not specified

New Zealand

2005

30 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, Industrial processes and product use, Agriculture, Forestry and other land use, Waste

Unrestricted access to global carbon markets that enable trading and use of a wide variety of units that meet reasonable standards and guidelines

Land-use included, Accounting will be land or activity-based.

Azerbaijan

1990

35 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, CF4

Energy, agriculture, LULUCF, waste

Not mentioned

1996 IPCC Guideliens

Cuba

Conditional policies and projects prioritizing the energy and agricultural sectors to 2030.  Depending on outcome of Paris negotiations, Cuba will study the possibility of communicating indicative targets in other interim periods.

Not specified

No

Not specified

Bahrain

There are strategies, plans and actions which may contribute to low greenhouse gas emission development:

Not specified

Not mentioned

Land-sector not included

Tunisia

2010

13 percent (carbon intensity; unconditional)

41 percent (carbon intensity; conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy; industrial processes; agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU); waste

Tunisia would like to use carbon market mechanisms in addition to direct financial support, for specific programs.

 

The baseline assumes continuation of the reforestation trend and conservation measures.

Jordan

BAU

1.5 percent (unconditional)

14 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, PFCs, HFCs

Energy (including transport), waste, industrial processes, agriculture and land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and solvents

Wish to increase involvement in carbon markets.

LULUCF included, no accounting methodology specified.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BAU

2 percent (unconditional)

23 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Conditional emission reduction is only possible with international support.

The Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of 1996, IPCC 2003 Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Lebanon

BAU

15 percent (unconditional)

30 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, PFCs, HFCs

Energy, industrial processes and other product use, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, and waste.

While at present, their use is not envisaged, Lebanon does not exclude the possibility of using international market mechanisms

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines, and good practice for LULUCF

Yemen

BAU

1 percent (unconditional)

14 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Land-sector not included

Dominican Republic

2010

25 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, , land use, land-use change and forestry, waste

There is potential for market mechanisms in the future. They must ensure environmental integrity nationally and internationally

Land-use included, accounting methodology not specified

Angola

BAU

20 and 35 percent

27 and 50 percent (conditional, then unconditional)

2025

2030

Not mentioned

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry

Not mentioned

Land-sector included, no accounting methodology specified.

Bolivia

A series of policies and measures, some unconditional and conditional on support

Not specified

Energy, forestry and agriculture, water

Not mentioned

Forestry included, no accounting methodology specified.

Afghanistan

BAU

13.6 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, natural resource management, agriculture, waste management and mining

Not mentioned

Land-sector excluded

Albania

BAU

11.5 percent

2030

CO2

Energy, industrial processes

Albania intends to sell carbon credits during the period until 2030, conditional on effective accounting rules developed under the UNFCCC.

Land-sector excluded

Andorra

BAU

37 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6

Energy and Waste

No

Land-sector excluded

Antigua and Barbuda

Implement a series of conditional and unconditional policy measures for mitigation and adaptation up to 2030.

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs

Energy, health, tourism, agriculture, waste, water, transportation, forestry and land-use change.

Market mechanisms play an important role, including a renewed and reformed CDM

2006 IPCC Guidelines

Armenia

Strive to reach “ecosystem neutrality”

2050

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs

Energy, transport, urban development, industrial processes, land-use and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Forest cover projections use data from Armenia’s first National Communication, and reflect government policies.

Bahamas

Achieve a minimum of 30 percent renewables by 2030, establish a permanent forest reserve, requiring international support

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, forestry

Not mentioned

1996 IPCC Guidelines

Barbados

BAU

37 percent (interim)

44 percent

2025


2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, SF6

Energy, industrial processes and product use,  agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)

2006 IPCC Guidelines

Benin

BAU

3.5 percent (unconditional)

21.4 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Energy, agriculture, forestry

Not mentioned

1996 IPCC revised guidelines for forestry and land-use accounting.

Belize

Policies and measures, dependent on international financial and technology support

CO2

Energy, land-use, land-use change and forestry

Will explore the use of CDM and other UNFCCC market mechanisms

Greenhouse gas emission reduction from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry not yet determined.

Bhutan

Bhutan intends to remain carbon neutral through a series of policies and measures

Not specified

Energy, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use and forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Botswana

2010

15 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, waste

Botswana will use market mechanisms under the convention

Land-use sector excluded

Brunei

Energy, transport and forestry sector emission reduction targets

Not specified

Energy, transportation, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Burkina Faso

BAU

6.6 percent (unconditional)

18.2 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20,

Energy, agriculture, waste

 

Not mentioned

Land-use sector excluded

Burundi

BAU

3 percent (unconditional)

20 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Cabo Verde

Unconditional and conditional pledges in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors by 2025

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, transport, waste, AFOLU

Not mentioned

GHG inventory using IPCC 2006 inventories

Cambodia

Policies and measures in the energy and LULUCF (conditional) sectors

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, land-use, land-use change and forestry

Not mentioned

Will be updated after the release of REDD+ Strategy

Cameroon

BAU

32 percent

2035

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, forestry, waste

Note mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Central African Republic

BAU

5 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, solvent use, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Chad

BAU

18.2 percent (unconditional)

71 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, land-use and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

GHG inventory using IPCC 2006 inventories

Comoros

BAU

84 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Congo

BAU

48 percent

55 percent

2025

2035

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, land-use and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

GHG inventory using IPCC 2006 inventories

Cook Islands

2006

38 percent (unconditional)

81 percent (conditional)

2020

CO2

Electricity generation

Not mentioned

Land-sector not included

Costa Rica

Net emissions limit

BAU

2012

9,374,000 MTCO2e


44 percent

25 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

All sectors in GHG inventory

Reserves right to use international compensation units towards NDC or, domestically.

Any units traded abroad will be registered in the National Emissions Inventory to avoid double counting.

Costa Rica has been significantly improving metrics to quantify emissions and fixation in these sectors. Costa Rica will continue with improvements in these metrics

 

Côte D’Ivoire

BAU

28 percent (unconditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

2000

17 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified.

Djibouti

BAU

40 percent (unconditional)

60 percent (conditional)

2030

 

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Forestry sector not included

Dominica

2014

39.2 percent

44.7 percent

(both conditional)

2025

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs

Energy , transport; manufacturing and construction; commercial/institutional, residential, agriculture, forestry, fishing, solid waste

Intends to introduce domestic market-based mechanisms for the transport sector to incentivize hybrid vehicles

  FAO's Global Forest Resource Assessment for Dominica and the 2003 IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

El Salvador

Establish a policy framework with quantitative targets for certain sectors for 2025 and 2030.

Not specified

Not mentioned

Will implement a REDD program

Equatorial Guinea

2010

20 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2

Energy, transportation, industry, forestry, waste

 

Not mentioned

Forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Eritrea

2010

39.2 percent (unconditional)

80.6 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Energy, industry, transport, forestry, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Inventory based on 2006 IPCCC guidelines

Ethiopia

BAU

64 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Agriculture (livestock and soil), forestry, transport, electric power, industry (including mining) and buildings (including waste and green cities)

Yes, as a seller of international credits

Land-use included; accounting methodology not specified

Fiji

Sector specific reduction to reach 100 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources. These measures will reduce CO2 emissions in the energy sector by around 30% from BAU by 2030. This will involve unconditional and conditional means.

CO2

Energy

Achieving the conditional goal will require substantial funding including fully functional international market mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Land sector not included

FYROM (Macedonia)

BAU

30 - 36 percent

2030

CO2

Energy supply, buildings, transport

Will consider linking to markets once decisions in the FVA/NMM discussions are concluded.

Forestry sector excluded

Gabon

BAU

50 percent

2025

CO2, CH4, N2O (HFC, PFC, SF6 and NF3 are covered later)

All sectors excluding forest biomass

No

Land sector and biomass excluded

Gambia

BAU

44.4 percent

2025

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy (incl. transport), industrial processes and product use, agriculture, waste

The Gambia does not plan to achieve any of its commitment by buying certificates from any potential new market mechanisms.

Inventory based on 2006 IPCCC guidelines

Georgia

BAU

15 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC-22, HFC-410

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, waste

Not specified

LULUCF not included

Ghana

BAU

15 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC-22, HFC-410

Energy including transport, industrial process and product use, AFOLU and waste.

Ghana intends to generate compliance grade emission reductions units from actions in the waste and energy sectors and REDD+

BAU and emission scenarios were estimated based on IPCC AFOLU accounting rules.

Grenada

2010

30 percent

40 percent (indicative)

2025

2030

CO2, CH4

Electricity, transport, waste, forestry

Grenada currently uses no market mechanisms but is willing to explore the potential of markets if relevant.

For the purposes of this INDC Grenada’s focus is the forested areas. The estimated tons of carbon per hectare of forest are 17,841.46.

Guatemala

BAU

11.2 percent (conditional)

22.6 percent (unconditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry, waste

Potential involvement in market mechanisms is “stable”

Not specified

Guinea

A series of policies and measures including a renewable energy target of 30 percent

CO2

Energy, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included, accounting methodology not specified

Guinea-Bissau

Conditional policies and measures in the energy and forestry sectors, as well as establishing a legal framework by 2030

CO2, CH4, NOx

Energy, forestry

Not mentioned

Detailed forestry projection data not available due to capacity constraints

Guyana

Overarching contribution goal is to achieve a Green Economy via a low-emission economic-development pathway, including a conditional pledge to increase renewable energy to 100 percent by 2025

CO2

Energy, forestry

Will not use markets outside of bilateral agreement with Norway

Will use conservation and sustainable management of forests

Haiti

BAU

5 percent (unconditional)

26 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, land-use and forestry, waste

The Republic of Haiti is planning to access carbon markets to finance part of its conditional contribution.

GHG inventories using 1996 IPCC guidelines.

Honduras

BAU

15 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

GHG inventories using 1996 IPCC guidelines.

Iceland

1990

40 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; Industrial processes and product use; Agriculture; Waste; Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

Will be included in the EU ETS, but reductions will be primarily domestic.

Not specified

Kenya

BAU

30 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, Transportation, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU), Waste

Kenya does not rule out the use of international market-based mechanisms in line with agreed accounting rules.

A global land-use data approach was used, as described in the 2003 IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF.

Kiribati

BAU

13.7 percent

12.8 percent

61.8 percent (conditional)

2025

2030

CO2

Energy (power and transport), maritime and coastal areas

Kiribati will consider market based mechanisms to support establishment and operation of a National Climate Change Trust Fund.

Land sector excluded

Kyrgyz Republic

BAU

11.49 – 13.75 (unconditional) /29- 30.89 percent (conditional)

12.67 – 15.69 (unconditional) / 35.06 – 36.75 percent (conditional)

2030

 

 

 

2050

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes and product use, solvent use, agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), waste

Not mentioned

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

 

Lao (People’s DemocracticRepublic of)

Policies and measures in multiple sectors, to be implemented by 2030

Not specified

Energy, transport, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Lesotho

BAU

10 percent (unconditional)

35 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use excluded

Liberia

A series of sectoral targets and policies, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10 percent by 2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, transport, waste

Not mentioned

GHG inventories calculated using 1996 IPCC Guidelines

Liechtenstein

1990

40 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes, solvent use, agriculture, LULUCF and waste.

Yes

Methodological approach uses standard methods under IPCC guidelines adopted by UNFCCC.

Madagascar

BAU

14 percent

32 percent (increased absorption)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, LULUCF, waste

No reduction based on of carbon credits purchased outside of Madagascar

Land-use included; accounting methodology not specified

Malawi

A series of policies and measures, both unconditional and conditional upon international support

CO2, CH4, N2O

energy, industrial processes and product use, AFOLU, waste

Not mentioned

2006 IPCC guidelines

Maldives

BAU

10 percent (unconditional)

24 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4

Energy, transportation, waste

Not mentioned

Land-sector excluded

Mali

BAU

29 percent (agriculture)

31 percent (energy)

21 percent (forestry)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, forests

Not mentioned

Forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Marshall Islands

2010

32 percent

45 percent (indicative)

2025

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, waste

No

Land-sector excluded (emissions negligible)

Mauritania

BAU

2.7 percent (unconditional)

22.3 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes products and uses, agriculture, forestry and land-use, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use included; accounting methodology not specified

Mauritius

BAU

30 percent

2030

CO2, Short-Lived Climate Forces (SLCF)

Energy, industrial processes products and uses, agriculture, forestry and land-use, waste

Not mentioned

This includes emissions from the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector based on IPCC Guidelines.

Micronesia

2000

28 percent

2025

CO2

Energy, electricity generation and transport

No

Land-sector not included

Moldova

1990

64-67 percent (unconditional)

78 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; land use, land-use change and forestry; and waste.

May use bilateral, regional and international market mechanisms to achieve its conditional 2030 target, subject to robust systems that deliver real and verified emissions reductions.

Account for the land sector using a net-net approach; use a “production approach” to account for harvested wood products

 

Monaco

1990

40 percent (optional)

 

50 percent

2025

 

 

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

All of the IPCC Sectors (Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste)

 

Intends to achieve INDC domestically; does not exclude markets if domestic measures insufficient

Entirely urbanized, so all green spaces will be considered parks rather than forestry.

Mongolia

Policies and measures, with an estimated emission reduction of 14 percent below BAU levels

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture

Not mentioned

Land-sector excluded

Montenegro

1990

30 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy, industrial processes and uses, agriculture, waste

Montenegro intends to sell carbon credits during the period , conditional on having effective accounting rules developed under the UNFCCC.

Agriculture, forestry and other land uses are currently not included.  These sectors can be included in the INDC at a later stage when technical conditions allow.

Mozambique

Policies and measures, with estimated reductions of 76.5MtCO2e. Estimated GHG emissions not available in the current INDC

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, transports, land use, land use change and forestry, waste

Mozambique is willing to participate in the market mechanisms to be established

1996 IPCC Guidelines and 2006 IPCC Guidelines used for greenhouse gas inventories

Myanmar

Policies and measures, conditional on international support. Estimated GHG emissions not available in the current INDC

Not specified

Energy, forestry

Not mentioned

Forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Namibia

BAU

89 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes and product use, AFOLU, waste

Not Mentioned

IPCC Guidelines for land-use accounting

Nauru

Unconditional and conditional pledges to install Solar PV, with greater deployment with international support

CO2

Energy

Not mentioned

Land-use not included

Niue

38% share of renewable energy of total electricity generation by 2020. Conditional upon additional international assistance, Niue could increase its contribution to an 80% share of renewable energy of total electricity generation, or higher, by 2025.

CO2, CH4, N2O

Electricity

Not mentioned

Land-use not included

Niger

BAU

2.5 percent (unconditional)

25 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, LULUCF, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use and forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Paraguay

BAU

10 percent (unconditional)

20 percent (conditional)

2030

All gases under Kyoto Protocol

All the IPCC sectors ((Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste)

Not mentioned

1996 IPCC Guidelines

Papua New Guinea

100 percent renewable energy target by 2030

CO2, CH4

Energy, forestry

Not mentioned

Accounting using a net approach, in accordance with 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Rwanda

Policies and measures, conditional on international support. Estimated GHG emissions not available in the current INDC

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industry, urban and rural settlement, transport, agriculture, land use, forestry, waste

Intend to sell carbon credits, through CDM, NAMAs and REDD+

Land-use and forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Samoa

100 percent renewable energy target by 2030, conditional on international support

CO2

Energy

Samoa currently uses no market mechanisms but is willing to pursue the potential of markets where possible.

Land-use sector excluded

San Marino

2005

20 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3

Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; land-use, land-use change and forestry; waste.

Intends to achieve its goals exclusively through domestic measures.

However, international market  mechanisms are not excluded if domestic reductions prove insufficient

IPCC Guidelines for greenhouse gas accounting

Sao Tome and Principe

BAU

24 percent

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

All sectors

Want to be supported by market mechanisms with high environmental integrity.

Not specified

Senegal

BAU

3 or 7 percent

4 or 15 percent

5 or 21 percent

(unconditional, then conditional)

2020

2025

2030

CO2, CH4, N20

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use and forestry excluded

Seychelles

BAU

21.4 percent

29 percent

2025

2030

CO2, CH4

Energy, waste

No

Land-sector excluded

Sierra Leone

Policies and measures, to prepare the people of Sierra Leone to limit their carbon footprint, from 2030-2050. They will also present a carbon intensity target reduction of 25-35 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, AFOLU, waste

Plan to use international credits to meet a carbon intensity target

IPCC Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Solomon Islands

2015 levels and BAU projections

12 / 27 percent (unconditional/ conditional)

30 / 45 percent (unconditional/ conditional

2025

 

2030

CO2

Energy, land-use, land-use change, forestry

Solomon Islands will consider other avenues as well as market based mechanisms to support establishment and operation of a National Climate Change Trust Fund

Appropriate methodologies drawn from international best practice to quantify sequestration from above 400m contour and forest plantations.

Somalia

A series of policies and projects on mitigation and adaptation

land use, renewable energy, coastal resource management

Not mentioned

Land-use accounting not specified

South Sudan

Aims to undertake the policies and actions in following sectors: energy generation and use; Land Use and Land use Change; and Transport, contingent on technical expertise

CO2

Energy generation and energy end use; Transport; and Land Use and Land Use Change

Not mentioned

Land-use accounting not specified

Sri Lanka

BAU

7 percent (unconditional)

23 percent (conditional)

2030

 

 

 

St. Kitts and Nevis

BAU

22 percent

35 percent

2025

2030

CO2

All sectors, especially energy and transport

Supports the inclusion of International Carbon Markets and other market mechanisms in a post-2020 agreement

IPCC Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

St. Lucia

BAU

16 percent

23 percent

2025

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, transport, electricity generation

Will pursue national level carbon pricing

Land-sector not included

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

BAU

22 percent

2025

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs

Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, waste, land-use, land-use change and forestry

Intend to use NAMAs and considers market mechanisms as part of its INDC

Land-use included, accounting method not specified

Sudan

A series of conditional policy measures to reduce emissions in multiple sectors

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, waste, forestry

Does not exclude using market-based-mechanisms in implementing its contributions if access is granted.

IPCC Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and 2003 Good Practice Guidance

Suriname

Policies and measures to increase renewable energy, conditional on international support

Not specified

Energy

Not mentioned

Land-sector excluded

Swaziland

Four conditional policy measures on GHG inventories, renewable energy, ethanol, and HFC/PFC/SF6 phase-out

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

All of the IPCC Sectors ( Energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; LULUCF; waste)

Not mentioned

Land-use and forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Tajikistan

1990

10-20 percent (unconditional)

25-35 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land-use and forestry, transport and infrastructure

Not mentioned

IPCC 2006 GHG Inventory Guidelines

Tanzania

BAU

10-20 percent

2030

Not specified

Energy, transport, forestry, waste

Not mentioned

Forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Togo

BAU

11.14 percent (conditional)

31.14 percent (unconditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, land-use and forestry, buildings, waste

CDM and REDD+

IPCC 2006 GHG Inventory Guidelines and 2003 Good Practice on LULUCF

Tonga

A series of sectoral targets and commitments to be implemented by 2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, transport, agriculture, waste

Not mentioned

Forestry and land-use excluded

Uganda

The implementation of a series of policies and measures in the energy supply, forestry and wetland sectors, conditional on international support.

Not specified

Implementation is conditional on access to climate finance and international market mechanisms

Land-use emissions calculated using 2006 IPCC guidelines

Uruguay

A series of sectoral targets to achieve net CO2 removal by 2030; additional measures for other gases

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, LULUCF, waste

Not mentioned

Land-use and forestry included; accounting methodology not specified

Vanuatu

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

CO2

Energy

No

Land-sector excluded

Zambia

BAU

25 to 47 percent (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy, agriculture, LULUCF, waste

Does not rule out the possibility of using market based mechanisms

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines and 2000 Good Practice Guidance.

Zimbabwe

BAU

33 percent (per-capita) (conditional)

2030

CO2, CH4, N2O

Energy

Not mentioned

Land-sector excluded

 

What would a "legal" agreement in Paris look like?

There is broad acceptance that the new international climate pact due this December in Paris will be a legal agreement. But governments have yet to agree on precisely which elements will be legally binding, an issue that directly affects whether and how the United States and other key countries will become parties.

The Paris negotiations are taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome will likely be a package containing a mix of legal and political outcomes housed in a variety of instruments: the core agreement, related decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP), and parties’ intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs).

Under the 2011 Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, which launched the negotiations, the Paris conference, known as COP 21, is to produce a “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties.”

The Paris talks: Looking behind the scenes

Negotiations toward a new global climate agreement resume Monday in Bonn amid growing concern that time is running short – the agreement is due this December in Paris – and that the remaining task is monumental.

Indeed, while the new text negotiators will be working from is a bit more coherent than the last one, it is still a very long way from something countries could sign on to in Paris.  Parties hopefully will make progress this week narrowing options and will task the co-chairs with producing a much more streamlined text for the next meeting in October.

The state of the text, though, may not the best measure of the state of the negotiations.  The tedious slog of the formal sessions in Bonn may be what’s most visible. But countries are spending even more time talking in other, less formal settings, at multiple levels. And the conversations there are considerably more encouraging.

One example is C2ES’s Toward 2015 dialogue, which brought together senior negotiators from China, the United States and 20 other European, Asian, Latin American and African countries for eight in-depth discussions over 15 months.  A final report last month from dialogue co-chairs Valli Moosa and Harald Dovland outlines key elements of a Paris deal.

Breaking through the Montreal Protocol stalemate

The latest working group meeting of the Montreal Protocol in Paris produced much useful discussion, but few concrete results due to limited but vocal opposition to an amendment to phase down hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs), a fast-growing, extremely potent family of global warming gases. 

Efforts to achieve an amendment at the upcoming Meeting of the Parties in November had gained considerable momentum over the past year.  Four proposals for an amendment had been submitted by India, the European Union, the Island States, and North America (Mexico, Canada and the U.S.).  Beyond those proposals, the African States also have voiced their clear support for an amendment and recent meetings between President Obama and his counterparts from Brazil, India, and China had produced joint statements in support of action on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. 

Despite support for these proposals from nearly 100 countries, the week-long meeting in Paris this month failed to reach agreement on even starting the negotiating process through the creation of a contact group.  After opposing these efforts over several meetings, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (and other Gulf Cooperation Council countries) voiced their willingness to allow a two-stage process to move forward, but Pakistan stood firm in opposition, blocking any agreement.

In the absence of a mandate to begin negotiations, a number of sessions in Paris focused on a very useful exchange of views on issues raised by the four amendment proposals.  India, China and others identified concerns about the costs and availability of alternatives to HFCs (including concerns about obstacles created by patents), the performance of these alternatives in high ambient temperatures, the time required to address flammability concerns of some key alternatives, the importance of energy efficiency, and the need for financing through the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund.

All agreed to hold another working group session prior to the November Meeting of the Parties. But time is fast running out on this year’s efforts to reach agreement on an HFC phasedown amendment.  

What can be done to break this stalemate?

In the past, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has sometimes played an active role convening senior representatives from key countries and driving needed compromise. During the early years of the Protocol, UNEP’s Mostafa Tolba was masterful in bringing key countries together to find a workable solution.  Through informal, senior-level consultations, Tolba either forged a compromise text acceptable to all, or developed his own proposals that he would offer as a way forward.

While times have certainly changed, it may be that the moment has now arrived for Achim Steiner, UNEP’s current executive director, to actively engage with senior officials from key countries with the goal of advancing efforts at bringing HFCs into the Montreal Protocol.

Companies pledge climate action

Thirteen companies took a public stand for climate action at the White House today, pledging to reduce heat-trapping emissions, increase clean energy investments, improve efficiency, and support efforts to reach a global climate agreement this year in Paris.

Three companies making pledges – Alcoa, Bank of America, and General Motors – are members of the C2ES Business Environmental Leadership Council, a group of mostly Fortune 500 companies, representing a combined $2.3 trillion in revenue, that support climate policy solutions that will move us toward a low-carbon future.

These business leaders – and many more – recognize the reality of climate change and the necessity to act.

For instance, HP recently announced that it will power 100 percent of its Texas-based data centers with renewable energy, thanks to a 12-year agreement to buy power from a 112 MW wind farm in Texas, in partnership with SunEdison.

Dow has reduced 320 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its operations compared to 1990 levels, and announced that by 2020, its trajectory for absolute emissions from operations and purchased power will meet internationally recognized targets for a 2 degree Celcius maximum global temperature rise.

Bob Perciasepe's Statement on Business Act on Climate Pledge

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

July 27, 2015

On the White House announcement of business leaders committing to climate action and supporting efforts to reach a global climate agreement in December in Paris.

We applaud the companies that have come forward to pledge action to reduce heat-trapping emissions, increase clean energy investments, improve efficiency, and support efforts to reach a global climate agreement this year in Paris.

Climate change is posing rising environmental, social, economic, and security risks. Delayed action only means greater costs.

Business leaders get it. They see climate risks firsthand -- in damaged facilities, interrupted power and water supplies, disrupted supply and distribution chains, and impacts on their employees’ lives.

And the business community will be essential to mobilizing the technology, investment and innovation needed to transition to a low-carbon economy.      

Several of the companies making pledges today – Alcoa, Bank of America, and General Motors – are members of the C2ES Business Environmental Leadership Council that is committed to climate action.

Although businesses, cities, states and nations are working toward a more sustainable future, it will take a global effort to address a global threat. Paris is our best opportunity to get all the major economies on board a lasting agreement that strengthens the global effort and works to strengthen it over time.

Many nations, including the United States, China, and the European Union, have already announced their goals for reducing greenhouse gases. But the strength of any agreement will rest on the parties’ political will to implement it.

The strong support of business leaders for climate action, like that exhibited today, can only help to strengthen that will.

--

To talk to a C2ES expert about business engagement on climate change, 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.

Elements emerging for an effective Paris climate agreement

Press release
July 15, 2015
Contact: Laura Rehrmann, rehrmannl@c2es.org, 703-516-0621
 

Report outlines emerging elements of climate agreement
Year-long dialogue of senior negotiators produces 'Vision for Paris'

 

The emerging elements of a Paris agreement are outlined in a new report based on in-depth discussions among senior climate negotiators from leading countries. The report foresees a durable legal agreement that sets binding commitments for all parties, holds countries accountable, and works to progressively strengthen global ambition.

Vision for Paris: Building an Effective Climate Agreement was prepared by Valli Moosa of South Africa and Harald Dovland of Norway, co-chairs of a year-long dialogue among negotiators from China, the United States and 20 other European, Asian, Latin American and African countries. The Toward 2015 dialogue was organized by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES).

Drawing on nearly 100 hours of discussions among the negotiators, who participated in the dialogue in their personal capacities, the report outlines the co-chairs’ vision of the new agreement under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be reached this December in Paris.

“Our discussions were frank, substantive, and productive. We saw strong convergence on many of the key issues for Paris,” said Mr. Moosa, former environment minister of South Africa. “This was a rare opportunity for genuine dialogue and the spirit throughout was very constructive.”

“Certainly there are tough negotiations ahead, but the broad outlines of a deal are becoming clear,” said Mr. Dovland, former lead climate negotiator for Norway and co-chair of several UNFCCC negotiating bodies. “We’re encouraged because behind the scenes we see a real desire to find common ground.”

The co-chairs’ report foresees a “hybrid” agreement in Paris that combines top-down and bottom-up elements to achieve both broad participation and strong ambition. It says the Paris outcome should:

  • Reaffirm the goal of limiting global average temperature increase to below 2 °C, and acknowledge that this requires the progressive decarbonization of the global economy. 
  • Include a core legal agreement with binding commitments by all parties to submit and maintain nationally determined contributions (NDCs), report on implementation of their NDCs, and be held accountable. 
  • Reflect differentiation not on the basis of explicit categories of countries, but by respecting parties’ varied starting points, and committing all parties to put forward their best efforts, and strengthen them over time.
  • Require periodic updating of NDCs (e.g., every 5 years), with parties expected to progress in the type, scope and/or scale of their efforts, in line with their circumstances.
  • Establish a common transparency and accountability framework, with flexibility for varying national capacities.
  • Establish a stronger vision for adaptation under the UNFCCC; commit all parties to implement and report on national adaptation efforts; and establish a process to periodically assess adaptation progress and priorities.
  • Set a collective aim of mobilizing finance and investment; commit all parties to invest their own resources domestically and provide enabling environments for investment; enable enlargement of the circle of contributors; and establish a process to regularly track flows and assess needs. 
  • Recognize commitments and actions by non-state actors – including subnational governments, businesses, international institutions and civil society organizations – in support of countries’ nationally determined contributions.

The Toward 2015 dialogue included participants from Australia, Brazil, China, the European Commission, France, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Japan, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, and the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC).  The list of participants is available at http://www.c2es.org/international/toward-2015.

Mr. Moosa, South Africa’s environment minister from 1999 to 2004, was a leader of the African National Congress and supported President Mandela in negotiating the transition from apartheid to democracy. He serves as chairman of WWF (South Africa), chairman of Anglo American Platinum, and a director of Lereko Investments, Sun International, Sanlam and Imperial Holdings.

Mr. Dovland previously served as co-chair of the UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform, and chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol. He retired from the Norwegian Ministry for the Environment in 2011 and is currently Climate Policy Director for the consulting firm Carbon Limits.

The dialogue was directed by C2ES Executive Vice President Elliot Diringer and received financial support from the governments of Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.

Read the report

More about the Toward 2015 Dialogue and its participants.

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.

Countries should assess climate risk the way they assess other security risks

National security leaders deal with deep uncertainty on a daily basis about everything from North Korea’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon to the location and timing of the next terrorist attack by non-state actors such as ISIS and al-Qaida. Security decision-makers don’t use uncertainty as an excuse to ignore security threats.

Borrowing a page from security analysts, a new report out today by renowned climate experts and high-level government advisors from China, India, the United Kingdom and the United States assesses the risks of climate change in the context of national and international security.

China’s provinces learn how to reduce emissions with trading

As many U.S. states start to think about ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the proposed Clean Power Plan, it’s eye-opening to see how Chinese provinces are taking many of the same first steps.

I recently joined state officials from Arizona and Michigan and a Georgetown University professor on a study tour of China’s climate policy and low-carbon technology use at the provincial level. In each city we visited -- Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu in Sichuan province, and Changsha in Hunan province -- our meetings with government officials, academics, and nongovernmental organizations had a common theme: Environmental issues are a serious challenge for China and greenhouse gases should be addressed along with other types of pollution.

It was very encouraging to hear national, provincial, and municipal leaders all agree that something has to be done to reduce China’s emissions. But they also agreed the country faces significant challenges in reaching its goal of peaking emissions no later than 2030.

How Canada and the U.S. can lead together on climate change

June 27, 2015
The (Toronto) Globe and Mail
Op-Ed by Janet Peace

With fossil fuel production going strong on both sides of the border, Canada and the United States face similar challenges in balancing energy and economic priorities with the urgent need to reduce climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.

By sharing solutions, many of which are rising up from the state and provincial level, both countries have the opportunity to not only craft a national approach, but also show real leadership as we work toward a new global climate agreement later this year in Paris.

At one time, governments in both countries sought to contain greenhouse gas emissions by enacting economy-wide cap-and-trade programs. But neither materialized, and the national targets the two have announced ahead of Paris rely heavily on subnational policies.

While U.S. emissions generally have been trending downward, as lower-priced natural gas has displaced coal in power production, steeper reductions require mandatory limits on power plant emissions, as President Barack Obama’s administration has proposed. But implementation of the administration’s Clean Power Plan will fall largely to the states.

In Canada, meanwhile, emissions are rising and oil sands-related emissions could double over the next decade if development continues at projected rates. Similarly, getting a handle on Canadian emissions will be largely a provincial matter – resting heavily, in this case, with the new Alberta government.

One of the great virtues of promoting climate action at the subnational level is that it allows for policy experimentation and innovation. Both countries should draw on these lessons as they move toward economy-wide approaches that can achieve greater emission reductions at lower cost. And they should work to better align their respective efforts.

Here are some specific ideas:

First, as more states and provinces turn to carbon pricing to curb emissions, we should forge stronger links among those systems. Ten U.S. states have carbon trading programs. Others may soon follow suit as they look for promising paths to meet their Clean Power Plan emissions reduction targets.

Quebec’s cap-and-trade program is already linked with California’s, and Ontario will soon join them. British Columbia has a carbon tax and Alberta just announced it is extending its carbon-intensity-based pricing system. By setting a clear timeline for a gradual price rice, Alberta is signalling that the value of taking action will increase over time.

Second, the two countries should co-operate on reducing emissions from growing oil and natural gas production. Mr. Obama’s administration is expected to propose a mix of regulatory and voluntary strategies to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. It’s essential that the United States and Canada set the right example for other major energy producers around the world.

Third, both should strengthen and more closely co-ordinate efforts to develop and deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Even with dramatic increases in renewable power, the world will continue to rely on coal and natural gas to generate electricity, making CCS key to any plausible strategy to reduce global emissions.

Canada has established itself as a leader with the world’s first commercial-scale, coal-fired power plant with CCS – Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. The United States is working on its first CCS power plant in Kemper County, Miss. But the first two examples of any new technology are going to be expensive, and we’ll need greater support for CCS to build more commercial scale projects and drive costs down. Alberta has been a strong supporter of CCS. Now is the time to continue and even step up that investment.

Fourth, Canada’s abundant hydro resources can be a boon for both countries. The U.S. and Canadian electricity grids are linked through dozens of connections and more than a dozen states already import a significant amount of Canadian hydro. A recent C2ES study found that importing hydro from even a modestly sized new Canadian project (250 megawatts) could help states reduce power sector emissions. For example, California, Massachusetts and Washington state could each get about a third of the way toward their proposed Clean Power Plan targets.

Canada and the United States are blessed with abundant resources and vibrant economies. Both have the opportunity to show global leadership in dramatically reducing the emissions that are warming our planet and risking our environment and our economies. With the right mix of national and subnational policies, and by working together, the two countries can enjoy strong, sustainable growth while fulfilling the commitments they make in Paris.

-

Janet Peace is senior vice-president of policy and business strategy at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). She is also a member of the Council of Canadian Academies on oil sands environmental technologies.

Read the original article on the Globe and Mail website.

Syndicate content