Search

This article provides further detail on expected global GHG emission levels in 2020, based on the Emissions Gap Report (United Nations Environment Programme, December 2010), assuming the emission reduction proposals in the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements are met. Large differences are found in the results of individual groups owing to uncertainties in current and projected emission estimates and in the interpretation of the reduction proposals. Regardless of these uncertainties, the pledges for 2020 are expected to deliver emission levels above those that are consistent with a 2°C limit. This emissions gap could be narrowed through implementing the more stringent conditional pledges, minimizing the use of ‘lenient’ credits from forests and surplus emission units, avoiding double-counting of offsets and implementing measures beyond current pledges. Conversely, emission reduction gains from countries moving from their low to high ambition pledges could be more than offset by the use of ‘lenient’ land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) credits and surplus emissions units, if these were used to the maximum. Laying the groundwork for faster emission reduction rates after 2020 appears to be crucial in any case. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Bali Action Plan as adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2007, states that Annex I (developed) countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, based on comparable efforts. Within this context, we have explored various comparable effort approaches (for example, equal marginal abatement costs for all countries) for reducing emissions by the year 2020 for individual countries and regions. In all calculations, the total reduction for Annex I countries as a group is assumed to be 30% below 1990 levels. In the analysis, we compare the reduction targets as calculated from the different approaches with the emission reductions as pledged by these countries as part of the Copenhagen Accord, as drafted under the UNFCCC in 2009. Our analysis indicates that the different elements in these calculations may cause a diversity in outcomes and that, therefore, individual countries may favour certain elements over others. These elements include (a) the choice of the approach itself (the same approach may produce very different outcomes for countries with diverging national circumstances, such as Canada and Russia); (b) the reference year (such as 1990 or 2006 emissions, is very important for countries with an increase in emissions since 1990 (e.g. the United States, Canada) or for those that have lower emission levels (e.g. Russia, the Ukraine)); and (c) rules on land use (these are important for countries with large forest areas). It should be noted that the stringency of the individual countries’ reductions as pledged, differs substantially from the stringency of the reduction targets calculated from the effort-sharing approaches. The current pledges by both the European Union and the United States, are lower than the reductions that would be obtained in the effort-sharing approaches for a 30% overall reduction in Annex I countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarises the results of an evaluation of the Climate Change Initiative launched by President Bush in February 2002. The policy target to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the US economy by 18% between 2002 and 2012 can be considered modest at best. The Initiative is likely to result in a 32% increase in US greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 compared to the 1990 levels. The effort also falls considerably short of efforts of the EU, Japan and Canada under the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush Initiative advocates using intensity targets in the international climate change regime, but overlooks fundamental problems associated with this approach. All the same, the Bush Initiative is of political significance as it recognises the importance of the climate change problem and may improve the longer-term prospects for US participation in a global climate regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]