UN talks on climate change agreement in Geneva in 2015. Credit: UN Photo

By Mengpin Ge and Kelly Levin
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 23 2018 (IPS)

In the lead up to the historic Paris Agreement on climate change, adopted in 2015, more than 160 countries and the European Union submitted their own plans to address climate change, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

According to the global climate pact, a country’s INDC is converted to a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) when it formally joins the Paris Agreement by submitting an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, unless a country decides otherwise.

NDCs present countries’ efforts to reach the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C (3.6°F), with efforts to stay below 1.5°C (2.7° F).

Even if current commitments are fully implemented, warming is on track to reach 2.7°C to 3.7°C over the course of the century, setting the world on course for dangerous sea level rise, intensified extreme events and other impacts.

Fortunately, several features in the Paris Agreement can help strengthen national commitments over time. For example, Parties to the Paris Agreement must communicate or update their NDCs by 2020 and continue to do so every five years thereafter to enhance ambition.

Some countries aren’t waiting until 2020 to make changes to their national climate commitments. As countries ratify the Paris Agreement, some have decided to revise their INDCs and communicate the changes as part of their first NDCs.

So far, of the 169 countries that have communicated an NDC, 15 offered a plan that differs from their INDC: Argentina, Benin, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, France1, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Mali, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan2, Uruguay and Venezuela.

In addition, three countries that have joined the Paris Agreement requested that their INDCs not be converted to NDCs upon ratification: Brunei Darussalam, Ecuador and the Philippines.

What does this mean for global climate action? Encouragingly, many of the revisions go beyond countries’ previous submissions, shifting to more stringent targets, increasing transparency, and reflecting recent developments in knowledge and technology.

Some countries, however, have lowered their ambition or made tweaks that make their commitment less clear. Here are some of the changes countries have made when converting INDCs to NDCs.

Three Countries Adopted More Stringent Targets

• Argentina changed its GHG target type to a fixed-level target in its NDC, specifying that it will not exceed net emissions of 483 MtCO2e by 2030, with conditional measures that could bring emissions further down to 369 MtCO2eq for 2030. The switch of target type presents a strengthened target by removing the uncertainties associated with baseline projections needed for the previous INDC target. Although mostly the result of an improved GHG inventory methodology, the NDC target also results in a lower level of emissions in 2030 when compared to the 569.5 MtCO2e implied by the INDC target (a 15 percent reduction below business-as-usual levels of 670 MtCO2e).

• Indonesia, while sticking to the same target of reducing emissions 29 percent unconditionally (up to 41 percent conditionally) from business-as-usual levels, revised its baseline emissions level from 2,881 MtCO2e in the INDC to 2,869 MtCO2e in NDC. Thus, its GHG target now translates to a lower level of absolute emissions in the target year.

• Morocco strengthened its target by stating further reductions, moving from an unconditional 13 percent reduction from business-as-usual emissions levels by 2030 (and a 31 percent conditional reduction) in its INDC to a 17 percent unconditional reduction (41 percent conditional) in its NDC.

Six Countries Announced New Commitments and Actions

• Morocco now presents a detailed portfolio of 55 unconditional and conditional mitigation actions, along with cost estimates and emissions-reduction potential for 2030. Examples with the highest emissions-reduction potential include: putting in place multiple wind farms, thermodynamic concentrated solar power and photovoltaic power plants in multiple areas by 2020; importing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and use of LPG for electricity generation in combined cycle power plants to reach 3,550 MW by 2025; and recycling household waste through co-incineration and mechanical biological treatment; among others.

• Nepal added to its list of 14 contributions a target to expand the share of renewable energy in its energy mix by 20 percent by 2020 and diversify its energy consumption pattern to more industrial and commercial sectors.

• Pakistan added a conditional GHG target to reduce emissions 20 percent from business-as-usual levels by 2030, along with lists of mitigation options for energy supply, energy demand and agricultural sectors.

• Sri Lanka added a seventh contribution for the energy sector related to converting existing fuel oil-based power plants to LNG, and added more details in its NDC on other sectoral mitigation strategies in transport, waste, industry and forestry sectors.

• Uruguay added non-GHG targets for several sectors, including energy, transport, agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, accompanied by detailed measures including increasing capacity of renewable energy, adoption of biofuel in gasoline and diesel, and maintenance of 100 percent of the native forest area by 2025, among others.

• Venezuela introduced the Ley de Semillas (2015) (Law of Seeds) for enhanced seed management as part of its series of actions and programs addressing climate change.

Many Countries Increased Their References to Adaptation

Almost all updated NDCs put more focus on adaptation as part of their contribution. For example:

• Argentina elaborated its adaptation needs by including a full “adaptation component” in its NDC, including discussion on national circumstances, vulnerability and impacts, current efforts and adaptation needs. This information will lay the foundation for its National Adaptation Plan.

• Belize expressed intention to provide information on adaptation at a later stage in its INDC. In its NDC, an adaptation chapter describes, among others, Belize’s vulnerability, near-term adaptation actions and co-benefits, and main actions to be implemented to build resilience in priority sectors, such as coastal and marine resources and agriculture.

• Benin includes a detailed table of sectoral objectives for adaptation for 2020, 2025 and 2030, and provides further details in an annex table of adaptation measures.

• Canada’s NDC recognizes the importance of building climate resilience.

• Indonesia moved discussions around its climate resilience strategy from an annex in the INDC to the main text in the NDC.

• Mali’s NDC now includes discussions on adaptation needs and action plans with cost estimates through 2020-2030, in addition to the 2015-2020 period previously included in the INDC.

• Morocco included a detailed section on its vulnerability to climate impacts in sectors such as water, agriculture and maritime fisheries. The NDC also elaborated its quantified sectoral adaptation goals for 2020 and 2030, as well as sectoral strategies, action plans, programs and initiatives that will enable the implementation of those goals.

• Sri Lanka’s NDC elaborated its adaptation contributions for its most vulnerable sectors, such as health, food security (agriculture, livestock and fisheries), water and irrigation, coastal and marine resources, biodiversity, urban infrastructure and human settlements, and tourism and recreation.

• Pakistan identified its adaptation actions and priorities in its NDC.

• Uruguay elaborated on its adaptation measures, and identified measures that have effects on both mitigation and adaptation.

None Countries Improved Their Transparency

• Argentina, Canada, Morocco and Uruguay have now specified the level of emissions that will result if their NDCs are achieved. This transparency is critically important because it provides an indication of where emissions are headed.

• Belize communicated the anticipated emissions reductions from its actions.

• Countries including Benin, Morocco, Pakistan and Sri Lanka presented more information on how their NDCs will be implemented and monitored.

Some Countries Weakened Their Commitments or Decreased Clarity

While the number of countries that strengthened their climate efforts while converting their INDCs to NDCs is encouraging, we also found examples of NDCs that indicate lowered ambition or less clarity about efforts. Such changes run counter to the Paris Agreement and could make it more challenging to rapidly curb emissions and close the emissions gap.

Some countries also removed targets from their NDC. For example, New Zealand removed references to sectoral targets and a long-term target; however, since then, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed the country to zero out its carbon footprint by 2050.

The Bahamas kept its target to reduce emissions 30 percent below a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, but removed the description translating this target as 30 percent below 2002. Removing this figure poses more uncertainty given that the emissions in the target year are no longer as clear.

Other countries revised their NDCs, likely as a result of groundtruthing earlier NDCs that were prepared ahead of the Paris COP. Benin’s revised NDC, for example, includes measures that would result in slightly greater reductions from the energy and agricultural sectors between 2021 and 2030, but would see higher cumulative emissions overall.

Mali remains a net sink of emissions in 2030, given that its land sector will continue to absorb more emissions than the country will emit; however, Mali’s new NDC presents a less ambitious unconditional net sequestration target of -12.7 MtCO2e in 2030, compared to its previous pledge of -33.6 MtCO2e in 2030.

None of these changes compare to the negative message sent by the United States. In July 2017, President Trump indicated that the country would “immediately cease implementation of its current nationally determined contribution.” Domestically, the Trump administration has systematically unraveled much of the United States’ domestic climate policies, and President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Step Up for Climate Action

Addressing climate change requires decisive leadership from all countries to step up their efforts as quickly as possible – and to make sure they align with the long-term emissions reductions required to avoid the worst impacts. Countries that have already strengthened their efforts should serve as a model for others to follow.

A core pillar of the Paris Agreement requires that countries scale up their national climate efforts every five years. Countries took the first step in 2015 by submitting their INDC, and in 2020, they must take the next. By the UN climate negotiations in Poland this December, the world is looking for countries to announce that they will enhance their NDCs by 2020.

By making this commitment in 2018, countries signal to their ministers, mayors and business leaders that the journey to building a zero-carbon, climate-resilient future is underway.

The link to the original article:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2018/04/insider-whats-changing-countries-turn-indcs-ndcs-5-early-insights

Excerpt:

South Carolina National Guard clears debris from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Credit: Capt. Tammy Muckenfuss/U.S. Army

By Kelly Levin
WASHINGTON DC, Jan 6 2018 (IPS)

Parts of the United States are experiencing blizzard and record low temperatures, with sharks freezing in the Atlantic and cold-snapped iguanas falling from trees in Florida.

The frigid, snowy conditions could be related to climatic changes—recent studies show that melting Arctic sea ice can disrupt the jet stream and push cold air south. Meanwhile, other parts of the world are currently experiencing warmer-than-average temperatures.

It’s reminiscent of the kinds of extremes we saw over and over last year. Across the world, extreme events hammered communities and smashed records, while scientists gained a better understanding of just how much climate change is fueling many of the disasters we’re witnessing.

We took stock of some of the most noteworthy impacts and scientific advances of 2017. One thing was clear: Climate change is creating conditions that put all of us at risk.

Texas National Guard soldiers help citizens evacuate during Hurricane Harvey. Credit: Lt. Zachary West , 100th MPAD/The National Guard

Temperature

• Although the year-end data have yet to be released, 2017 will likely be the third-warmest year in the 138-year record (possibly even the second-warmest, according to one report). Notably, it is on track to be the warmest year without an El Niño, a weather pattern that typically boosts average global temperatures.

Extreme Events

• As of early October, there had already been 15 weather and climate disaster events in the United States with losses of more than $1 billion, tying 2016’s total and only one shy of 2011’s record number of “billion-dollar disasters.”

• California just experienced its largest-ever wildfire, causing at least 50,000 people to evacuate. This came on the heels of a wildfire in northern California only a few weeks earlier, which killed more than 40 people and destroyed at least 8,400 homes.
• Hurricanes came in rapid succession, including Hurricane Harvey (with flooding from storm surge and extreme rainfall that left nearly 800,000 people in need of assistance), Hurricane Irma (the strongest in the Atlantic since Wilma in 2005) and Hurricane Maria (the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Puerto Rico since 1928). Scientists are at work researching the role of climate change in these events, but have already found that human-induced climate change likely increased the chances of Harvey’s heavy rainfall by at least 3.5 times and its intensity by almost 20 percent.
• East Africa fell deeper into a humanitarian crisis due to devastating drought, compounded with conflict, with millions going hungry.
• Australia broke more than 260 heat and rainfall records and witnessed its warmest winter on record.
• The 2017 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society found that scientists are increasingly able to discern whether climate change is impacting extreme events. The report reviewed work from 116 scientists from 18 countries and found that multiple extreme events in 2016—such as the extreme heat across Asia and a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska—could not have even been possible without human influence to the climate. Another noteworthy publication found a connection between the severity of a number of extreme events and climate impacts to the jet stream.

Sea Level Rise

• Scientists mapping Greenland’s coastal seafloor and bedrock found that 2 to 4 times as many coastal glaciers are at risk of accelerated melting than previously considered.
• In Antarctica, scientists for the first time documented widespread movement of meltwater and large-scale surface drainage systems, which could send water to areas of ice shelves already vulnerable to collapse and accelerate future ice-mass loss.

Glaciers in Disko Bay, Greenland. Credit: twiga269 ॐ FEMEN/Flickr

Ice

• Scientists determined that the extent and rate of Arctic sea ice decline is unprecedented for at least the past 1,500 years.

Graphic by NOAA Climate.gov, Kinnard et al., 2011

• Arctic sea ice dipped to its smallest maximum extent ever recordedduring the month of March (it has been dropping about 2.8 percent each decade since 1979). Additionally that month, there was less than one percent of older sea ice (lasting longer than four winters), which is much more resistant to melt than new ice.
• Although summer ice extent in Antarctica has been generally growing over the past years, in 2017, scientists recorded the lowest summer ice extent ever. Scientists will need several more years of data to understand whether this was due to variation alone or indicative of more systemic changes.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• The World Meteorological Bulletin found that concentrations of carbon dioxide – 403.3 parts per million (ppm) in 2016 – were the highest in at least 800,000 years and were 45 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. The last time Earth experienced comparable concentrations of carbon dioxide was when sea level was 10-20 meters higher than today and global average temperature was 2-3°C warmer. While it’s too early to tell what 2017’s annual concentrations will be, for the first time, the Mauna Loa Observatory recorded readings exceeding 410 ppm.
• The Global Carbon Project and University of East Anglia found that 2017 experienced the highest levels of carbon pollution on record, reversing course on a flattening of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry over the past three years.

Scotland oil rig. Photo by Steven Straiton/Flickr

Ecological Disruption

• Scientists discovered that tropical forests may have reached a critical threshold — turning from a carbon sink, where they suck up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they emit, to a carbon source, thanks to deforestation, degradation and other land use changes.

• Permafrost temperatures were warmest on record in 2016, and preliminary data suggest they will be for 2017 as well. This warming could cause permafrost ecosystems to thaw, destabilize and release greenhouse gases locked inside.
• A study published in Nature found that ecosystems have taken longer to recover from droughts, especially in the tropics and northern high latitudes, than ever before. Recovery time is a signal of ecosystem resilience; compromised recovery could lead to widespread tree death.
• Scientists found that previous estimates of climate change’s impacts on species were highly underestimated — almost 1 in 2 threatened mammals and 1 in 4 threatened birds have already been negatively impacted by climate change in at least some part of their range.

We Need to Reverse Course

It’s clear that trends are headed in the wrong direction. But 2018 brings a fresh start, and an opportunity to learn from 2017 and the record-breaking years that came before it. May this new year bring a new resolve to reverse course and take actions that move toward a low-carbon future.

Excerpt:

Credit: Cam McGrath/IPS

By Taryn Fransen and Kelly Levin
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 6 2017 (IPS)

Over its first year, the Trump administration has taken extreme steps to unravel progress on U.S. climate action domestically. Last month, President Trump’s administration reiterated its intention to abandon the Paris Agreement, isolating the United States internationally.

Now that Syria has formally joined the Paris Agreement, the United States is the only country not on board with the global accord. And in July at the G20 Summit President Trump indicated the United States would “immediately cease implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution.”

The administration has followed through by holding a hearing on its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan – former President Barack Obama’s signature plan to curb climate-warming emissions in the electric sector.

The administration has also taken steps to revisit rules that would limit emissions from new fossil fuel plants, light-, medium-, and heavy-duty-) vehicles, and methane sources like new oil and natural gas equipment. At the same time, the administration has also moved forward with rules to support baseload coal generation and orders to increase oil and gas production on public and tribal lands.

Many states, cities and companies have stepped up in response to Trump’s announcement on the Paris Agreement with their own statements of “We Are Still In,” pledging to support the agreement and to take action on climate change.
If the administration continues with these plans, it could significantly compromise the United States’ ability to deliver on its Paris Agreement pledge (known as a nationally determined contribution, or NDC) to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

Much of the trajectory for U.S. emissions depends on how quickly policies are reversed or revised, and what will replace them. In addition, many states, cities and companies have stepped up in response to Trump’s announcement on the Paris Agreement with their own statements of “We Are Still In,” pledging to support the agreement and to take action on climate change.

A recent report from America’s Pledge has documented the scope and scale of non-federal action, showing that more than 2,500 non-federal actors, representing more than half of the U.S. economy, have pledged support for the Paris Agreement goals. The report was released by Gov. Jerry Brown of California and UN Special Envoy on Climate and Cities Mike Bloomberg, with analysis by our colleagues at WRI, the Rocky Mountain Institute and CDP.

The U.S. emissions trajectory of the next several years will depend in part on what impact these subnational and corporate actions will have and how much market forces will continue to drive decarbonization. At the global level, it is also too early to tell whether other countries will step up and make up for the lack of U.S. climate action.

In the wake of these changes to federal climate policies, we have sought to explore two questions: (1) How might policy rollbacks increase emissions? and (2) To what extent might action by states, cities, and others counteract such an increase?

We reviewed recent studies from seven organizations to review and synthesize their assumptions and findings to date. The America’s Pledge initiative will also dig deeper into these issues in the months ahead by aggregating and quantifying the full range of potential U.S. non-federal action and what that means for future U.S. emissions.

On the first question, we looked at seven studies by Climate Action Tracker, Climate Advisers, Climate Interactive, National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation (NCSC), Resources for the Future, and Rhodium Group.

These studies examine different scenarios of Trump administration impacts on US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2025, and estimate what emissions levels would have been under Obama’s policies.

Besides U.S. emissions, Climate Interactive examines global emissions and global temperature under Trump administration policies. On the second question, we reviewed studies by the Carbon Brief and the Sierra Club, which evaluate the potential of states and other actors to offset Trump’s policies.

Potential impact of policy rollbacks

Taken together, the first seven studies suggest that if Trump’s policies are put into effect, U.S. emissions in 2025 will range from 5.6 to 6.8 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent (CO_2e). Under Obama’s policies, estimates suggest emissions would have ranged from about 5.0 to 6.6 GtCO_2e.

Scenarios that consider Obama’s policies without the Clean Power Plan find a range of 5.1 to 6.8 GtCO_2e. All these scenarios show emissions in 2025 higher than the U.S. target of 4.8 to 4.9 GtCO_2e. Most are also higher than 2015 emissions of 5.8 GtCO_2e, which reflects that additional actions would have been necessary between now and 2025 to achieve the U.S. NDC even if the full suite of Obama’s policies had been enacted. Unsurprisingly, the studies find that the United States would have come closer to hitting its NDC target under Obama’s policies than under Trump administration proposals.

Climate Interactive also assesses what global emissions would rise to if the U.S. does not make any efforts to meet its NDC and finds that emissions in 2025 would be 57.3 GtCO_2e, in contrast to 55.8 had the NDC been achieved.

The same study finds that the US NDC alone would have resulted in 0.3 degrees C (0.5 degrees F) less warming (3.3 degrees C (5.9 degrees F) versus 3.6 degrees C (6.5 degrees F)) without it, not accounting for Paris Agreement mechanisms to ramp up ambition over time – a significant contribution towards the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees C (2.7 to 3.6 degrees F).

Each organization approached the analysis differently. Three main factors were largely responsible for the differences among the studies:

1. Which policy rollbacks were included in the analyses

There is considerable uncertainty regarding which policies Trump might ultimately roll back (court decisions will have a significant role). Studies examine different combinations of policies that the Trump administration might diminish.

All the Trump scenarios envision eliminating the Clean Power Plan, which accounts for the majority of emissions reductions under Obama’s Climate Action Plan. However, scenarios examine a range of possibilities for policies such as those affecting methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and vehicle standards:

2. Treatment of market forces

Only some of the analyses explicitly consider the extent to which market forces will influence US emissions. Resources for the Future uses the Biennial Report (BR), updated to reflect the 2017 GHG inventory, as its basis for projections, with no consideration of reductions resulting from market forces beyond those captured in the biennial report and updated inventory.

The Rhodium Group’s Trump’s Regulatory Rollback Begins analysis held macroeconomic and energy price assumptions constant and aligned them with EIA’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook forecast. The Rhodium Group’s Taking Stock report includes an examination of uncertainties based on the interactive effects of multiple market forces and quantifies the impacts of a variety of related assumptions.

3. Treatment of land sector emissions

Groups differed in how they estimated land sector removals and specifically how significant a carbon sink the U.S. would have in the future. For example, the Rhodium Group’s Trump’s Regulatory Rollback Begins analysis considers a range of projections for land sector sequestration. In contrast, Climate Interactive’s analysis excluded land sector emissions altogether.

Can States, Companies and Market Forces Counteract the Trump Effect?

As already noted, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has been met by a loud backlash among states, cities, businesses and others. Over 2,500 governors, mayors and others have joined the We Are Still In campaign.

While future America’s Pledge analysis will examine how these actions can affect future emissions, we reviewed two existing studies that explored how states and other sub-national actors can close the emissions gap left by Trump administration rollbacks to achieve the U.S. Paris Agreement target.

First, a Sierra Club analysis quantifies the potential for three categories of action to achieve the US target: accelerated replacement of coal with clean energy resources like wind and solar; defense of existing policies including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, vehicle standards and HCFC rules; and local action by businesses and local elected officials to embrace clean energy and transition away from fossil fuels. Collectively, Sierra Club’s research finds that if these actions are achieved they could reduce emissions by almost 4.5 GtCO_2e in 2025.

Second, an analysis by Carbon Brief identifies the share of US carbon dioxide emissions from states that are members of the U.S. Climate Alliance, other states that have GHG emission reduction targets and states that lack such controls on GHG emissions. It explores the levers states can use to control emissions from electricity, transport and on-site sources. The Carbon Brief concludes that if states find the political will to use these levers, they could meet the U.S. climate commitment.

Maintaining International Momentum

The Trump administration’s actions to reverse actions to reduce GHG emissions isolates the United States and will likely slow this country’s progress on tackling climate change and advancing clean energy.

How much emissions and global temperatures will rise as a result has yet to be fully determined, and will depend in large measure how subnational action in the United States, such as the We Are Still In campaign, market forces and international efforts can sustain momentum in the coming years.

The recommitment to the Paris Agreement by world leaders other than Trump at the G20 summit, and progress at COP23, shows their intent to demonstrate the opportunities offered in working toward a low-carbon future. Many U.S. cities, states, regions and companies are already joining other countries in taking the helm on climate and clean energy action and pointing the way toward a low-carbon future.

This story was originally published by the World Resources Institute (WRI)