Global politics is not an easy game, and the UN climate talks is probably one of the best examples of processes which goes on and on, with difficult to reach a final agreement. 2015 is the year where a global climate agreement should be adopted, and we are now counting down to the climate summit in Paris, in December. However, the content of the agreement is actually emerging already now, and we better pay attention.
The traditional way of reaching a global agreement, involves negotiation, and a final compromise where the commitments of different parties are agreed. This approach has had difficulties to deliver results during previous climate talks, and therefore a different approach was agreed this time. Parties are presenting their contributions to a global agreement already now, thus making the actual content of the agreement, visible long before the framework is agreed. Each party should submit an “Intended Nationally determined Contribution”, a so called INDC, describing how they would like to contribute. The two first INDCs have now been published, and we can thus start to see the shapes of the global agreement.
Time to digest, analyze and review
Governments agreed to submit their INDCs, but they did not manage to agree on the format, or what kind of information the submissions should include. The task is now to review what governments submit, to understand, and to make comparison possible. This will not be an easy task!
The European Union commit to reduce their emissions with “at least” 40% in 2030, and Switzerland will reduce their emissions with 50% in 2030. The Swiss pledge sounds good, but in reality it may end up to be lower than the EU. The Swiss 50% includes both domestic reductions (30%) and “off setting” (20%), meaning Swiss support to mitigation action in other countries. The 40% target of the EU will happen within the union, and additional off setting may be added on top of the 40%.
With no clarity on the format, parties can submit what they want. We may end up with a new formats for each INDC, with different base line years, different types of thematic focus, and different time frames.
Where is the logic?
While transition to a green and low carbon development will have many positive effects, it may also have a price, and all governments are concerned about the burden their countries will have to take. Thus the question of a fair effort sharingis crucial, and the INDCs governments submit, will all be analyzed from a fairness perspective.
Considering the need to address fairness, or equity as it is referred to in the UN talks, it would be good if each government explain why their contributions should be considered equitable. All governments may not agree, but at least there would be a logic, which could be discussed and debated.
The Swiss INDC do refer to principles of “per capita emissions” and “historic responsibility” when they present their national targets. That is good, and I hope other countries will do the same. And EU can still have make an amendment, and explain why their 40% target should be seen as a fair share of the global efforts.
Climate science has given us a clear message about the need to reduce emission globally. When all INDCs are summed up, it will become clear if the efforts are sufficient, compared to the targets set by science. EU and Switzerland are first to present their contributions. If all countries follow their level of ambition we are not likely to reach the global targets set by science. There will most probably be a gap, which must be closed to ensure that the global temperature doesn’t increase above the critical level of 2 degrees Celsius. That will be a task to solve at the climate summit in Paris.