NEW DELHI: Days after India asked rich countries in the G20 meet to bring down their per capita emissions to the global average by 2030, a new study on Wednesday flagged how many developed countries are in their pre-2020 commitments. have failed miserably. , including all G7 nations, have recorded only a 3.7% decline in their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions above 1990 levels by 2019.
The study, first of its kind in a developing country, was conducted by a New Delhi-based think tank energy, environment and water council (CEEW), could be an eye-opener for all stakeholders who are pitching for higher mitigation targets of all emitters, including India, for the post-2020 period, without actually looking at how historical pollutants have contributed to 2020. What did you do during your last commitment period?
Although these countries, as well as developed countries in the erstwhile USSR, collectively reported a 14.8% decline in emissions in 2019, against the target of 18% below 1990 levels, they did not reduce their emissions over the period 2008-2020. They emitted a much higher amount of carbon during the period than they expected – meaning they consumed ‘carbon space’ that might otherwise have been available to developing and poor countries for their developmental needs.
“There should be trust and confidence in the multilateral process. Therefore, it is important to recall and review what promises were made in the pre-2020 period and whether they were fulfilled,” said Richa Sharma, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Environment who deals with climate change issues.
Making his remarks at the virtual release ceremony of the study, Sharma said, “A clear and fair assessment of finances along with pre-2020 commitments and mitigation is the need of the hour.”
The study attempts to clearly elucidate the performance of developed countries in the previous commitment periods (2008-12 and 2013–2020). CEEW also released a ranking of 43 developed countries with this study, based on their commitment to climate action and mitigation efforts in the pre-2020 climate regime.
Sweden, the UK, Belgium and Denmark top the list while other major economies such as the US, Canada, Australia and Russia are in the lower half of their pre-2020 actions.
The CEEW study highlighted that US non-participation in both commitment periods (2008-12 and 2013-2020) had several adverse effects on global climate action, including the withdrawal of other developed countries from the Kyoto Protocol.
In addition to the US, the largest historical emitter, three other major polluters – Canada, Russia and Japan – had also abandoned climate actions under one or both commitment periods.
“Emissions from non-participating countries accounted for 47% of all developed countries’ emissions between 2008–12. This figure rose to 71% between 2013-20,” says the study – ‘Unpacking Pre-2020 Climate Commitments: Who Deliver, How Much, and How Will the Gaps?’
Against the backdrop of poor performance of rich countries in reducing their promised carbon footprint during the pre-2020 period, CEEW CEO Arunabha Ghosh said, “While all countries should consider increasing their ambition, incomplete The promise and disproportionate use of carbon space may not fall on developing countries (for climate action after 2020).
In fact, India raised the issue during the G20 ministerial meeting last week, setting the tone for the stance of developing countries ahead of the 26th session. a Climate Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, UK in November where action before 2020 and mobilizing adequate finance for climate action will dominate the discourse.
“We must ensure that history does not repeat itself, and that countries work together to effectively tackle climate change. Our hope is that our evaluation of past efforts will lead to greater leadership, trust and transparency in future climate negotiations. which will start from COP26,” said Shikha Bhasin, Senior Program Lead, CEW.
She said, “This is vital to ensure a just, equitable and prosperous future. For example, countries that are sitting out of a commitment period prior to 2020 can compensate by making unsold purchases. Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or voluntarily canceling the unearned carbon allowance.”
The study, first of its kind in a developing country, was conducted by a New Delhi-based think tank energy, environment and water council (CEEW), could be an eye-opener for all stakeholders who are pitching for higher mitigation targets of all emitters, including India, for the post-2020 period, without actually looking at how historical pollutants have contributed to 2020. What did you do during your last commitment period?
Although these countries, as well as developed countries in the erstwhile USSR, collectively reported a 14.8% decline in emissions in 2019, against the target of 18% below 1990 levels, they did not reduce their emissions over the period 2008-2020. They emitted a much higher amount of carbon during the period than they expected – meaning they consumed ‘carbon space’ that might otherwise have been available to developing and poor countries for their developmental needs.
“There should be trust and confidence in the multilateral process. Therefore, it is important to recall and review what promises were made in the pre-2020 period and whether they were fulfilled,” said Richa Sharma, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Environment who deals with climate change issues.
Making his remarks at the virtual release ceremony of the study, Sharma said, “A clear and fair assessment of finances along with pre-2020 commitments and mitigation is the need of the hour.”
The study attempts to clearly elucidate the performance of developed countries in the previous commitment periods (2008-12 and 2013–2020). CEEW also released a ranking of 43 developed countries with this study, based on their commitment to climate action and mitigation efforts in the pre-2020 climate regime.
Sweden, the UK, Belgium and Denmark top the list while other major economies such as the US, Canada, Australia and Russia are in the lower half of their pre-2020 actions.
The CEEW study highlighted that US non-participation in both commitment periods (2008-12 and 2013-2020) had several adverse effects on global climate action, including the withdrawal of other developed countries from the Kyoto Protocol.
In addition to the US, the largest historical emitter, three other major polluters – Canada, Russia and Japan – had also abandoned climate actions under one or both commitment periods.
“Emissions from non-participating countries accounted for 47% of all developed countries’ emissions between 2008–12. This figure rose to 71% between 2013-20,” says the study – ‘Unpacking Pre-2020 Climate Commitments: Who Deliver, How Much, and How Will the Gaps?’
Against the backdrop of poor performance of rich countries in reducing their promised carbon footprint during the pre-2020 period, CEEW CEO Arunabha Ghosh said, “While all countries should consider increasing their ambition, incomplete The promise and disproportionate use of carbon space may not fall on developing countries (for climate action after 2020).
In fact, India raised the issue during the G20 ministerial meeting last week, setting the tone for the stance of developing countries ahead of the 26th session. a Climate Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, UK in November where action before 2020 and mobilizing adequate finance for climate action will dominate the discourse.
“We must ensure that history does not repeat itself, and that countries work together to effectively tackle climate change. Our hope is that our evaluation of past efforts will lead to greater leadership, trust and transparency in future climate negotiations. which will start from COP26,” said Shikha Bhasin, Senior Program Lead, CEW.
She said, “This is vital to ensure a just, equitable and prosperous future. For example, countries that are sitting out of a commitment period prior to 2020 can compensate by making unsold purchases. Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or voluntarily canceling the unearned carbon allowance.”
.