Tag Archives: money

COP20 extended another day – but where’s the money? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As negotiators enter into all all night session in Lima this Friday night, poor countries that are the main victims of climate change are asking the rich: “where’s the $100 billion a year you promised?”

The Green Climate Fund was announced at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 as a $100 billion a year fund that would finance poor countries adaptation to climate change and their transition to a  low carbon economy.

But so far in Lima, the rich countries have pledged just $10 billion, to be released over four years – just 2.5% of the annual sum promised. As India’s Prakash Javadekar told the Guardian, “We are disappointed. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn.”

Meanwhile the main negotiating text has scarecely progressed beyond its initial seven-page draft, with deep faultlines set between rich and poor countries.

In a nutshell, the rich countries want to keep their cash, while the poor take on emissions cuts matching their own undemanding targets.

The poor, exemplified by India, want to see the rich make deep emissions cuts and to pay up on their climate fund promises, before signing up to any emissions targets at all.

Progress has been made – but outside the UN process

The only good news is that commitments by China, the US and Europe on emissions cuts could mean significant progress towards ensuring that global average temperatures this century will rise less than predicted.

Researchers say the post-2020 plans announced recently by China and the US and the European Union mean projected warming during this century is likely to be less than expected. The downside is that, even then, the world will still not be doing enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to below 2˚C.

The research, released at the UN climate change conference currently being held in Lima, comes from the Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks countries’ emission commitments and actions.

It comes in the form of an assessment by four organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

But these commitments were made before the conference. Many had hoped that they would provide the momentum and goodwill needed to reach a wider agreement. But that never happened.

Not enough to limit warming to 2°C – but a start

Together, the four groups measured government pledges and actions against what will be needed to limit warming below the agreed international goal of a maximum 2°C increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, and against the goal of bringing warming below 1.5°C by 2100.

China – which recently announced a cap on coal consumption from 2020 – and the US and EU together contribute around 53% of global emissions. If they fully implement their new, post-2020 plans, they would limit global temperature rise to around 3˚C by 2100, which is between 0.2˚C and 0.4˚C lower than it would have been.

Their plans are more ambitious than earlier commitments, and represent what the researchers call “significant progress”. But they won’t limit warming to below 2˚C.

“In the context of increasing momentum towards a global agreement to be adopted in Paris in 2015, this represents a very important first step towards what is needed”, said Bill Hare, executive director of Climate Analytics.

“Tempering this optimism is the large gap that remains between the policies that governments have put in place that will lead to warming of 3.9°C by 2100, compared to the improvements they’ve made in their promises. These new developments indicate an increasing political will to meet the long-term goals.”

Niklas Höhne, founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said: “China’s post-2020 emissions levels remain unclear and difficult to quantify. Its peak by 2030 falls somewhat short of a 2°C pathway. However, if emissions peak just five years earlier, this could make a very big difference and move them very close to a 2°C pathway.”

Höhne added that the US, with full implementation of its proposed policies, appears likely to meet its 2020 goal of 17%. But further measures would be needed to meet its newly-proposed 2025 goals.

Targets lacking ambition – so far

The EU’s current policies put it on a trajectory towards meeting its 2020 target. But it’s not enough to meet its more ambitious conditional target of a 30% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the 40% reduction target by 2030.

Rapidly industrialising countries such as India could do more, say the reseachers. Recent discussions indicate that India had been considering putting forward next month a peak year for emissions between 2035 and 2050, which – depending on the level at which this peak occurred – could be consistent with a 2°C pathway.

“We only have a very limited amount of carbon that can be burned by 2050, and we calculate that current policies would exceed this budget by over 60% by that time”, Hare said. “We clearly have a lot of work to do.”

But with the rich countries failure to pay up that leaves an impossible mountain to climb for negotiators in Lima tonight. India is among those countries digging in its heels until the rich countries make much deeper cuts, and honour their financing promises.

The key question facing developing country negotiators will be whether it’s better to settle for a bad agreement, or to emerge with none at all. Past form suggests the former – but don’t count on it.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388133

COP20 extended another day – but where’s the money? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As negotiators enter into all all night session in Lima this Friday night, poor countries that are the main victims of climate change are asking the rich: “where’s the $100 billion a year you promised?”

The Green Climate Fund was announced at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 as a $100 billion a year fund that would finance poor countries adaptation to climate change and their transition to a  low carbon economy.

But so far in Lima, the rich countries have pledged just $10 billion, to be released over four years – just 2.5% of the annual sum promised. As India’s Prakash Javadekar told the Guardian, “We are disappointed. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn.”

Meanwhile the main negotiating text has scarecely progressed beyond its initial seven-page draft, with deep faultlines set between rich and poor countries.

In a nutshell, the rich countries want to keep their cash, while the poor take on emissions cuts matching their own undemanding targets.

The poor, exemplified by India, want to see the rich make deep emissions cuts and to pay up on their climate fund promises, before signing up to any emissions targets at all.

Progress has been made – but outside the UN process

The only good news is that commitments by China, the US and Europe on emissions cuts could mean significant progress towards ensuring that global average temperatures this century will rise less than predicted.

Researchers say the post-2020 plans announced recently by China and the US and the European Union mean projected warming during this century is likely to be less than expected. The downside is that, even then, the world will still not be doing enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to below 2˚C.

The research, released at the UN climate change conference currently being held in Lima, comes from the Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks countries’ emission commitments and actions.

It comes in the form of an assessment by four organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

But these commitments were made before the conference. Many had hoped that they would provide the momentum and goodwill needed to reach a wider agreement. But that never happened.

Not enough to limit warming to 2°C – but a start

Together, the four groups measured government pledges and actions against what will be needed to limit warming below the agreed international goal of a maximum 2°C increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, and against the goal of bringing warming below 1.5°C by 2100.

China – which recently announced a cap on coal consumption from 2020 – and the US and EU together contribute around 53% of global emissions. If they fully implement their new, post-2020 plans, they would limit global temperature rise to around 3˚C by 2100, which is between 0.2˚C and 0.4˚C lower than it would have been.

Their plans are more ambitious than earlier commitments, and represent what the researchers call “significant progress”. But they won’t limit warming to below 2˚C.

“In the context of increasing momentum towards a global agreement to be adopted in Paris in 2015, this represents a very important first step towards what is needed”, said Bill Hare, executive director of Climate Analytics.

“Tempering this optimism is the large gap that remains between the policies that governments have put in place that will lead to warming of 3.9°C by 2100, compared to the improvements they’ve made in their promises. These new developments indicate an increasing political will to meet the long-term goals.”

Niklas Höhne, founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said: “China’s post-2020 emissions levels remain unclear and difficult to quantify. Its peak by 2030 falls somewhat short of a 2°C pathway. However, if emissions peak just five years earlier, this could make a very big difference and move them very close to a 2°C pathway.”

Höhne added that the US, with full implementation of its proposed policies, appears likely to meet its 2020 goal of 17%. But further measures would be needed to meet its newly-proposed 2025 goals.

Targets lacking ambition – so far

The EU’s current policies put it on a trajectory towards meeting its 2020 target. But it’s not enough to meet its more ambitious conditional target of a 30% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the 40% reduction target by 2030.

Rapidly industrialising countries such as India could do more, say the reseachers. Recent discussions indicate that India had been considering putting forward next month a peak year for emissions between 2035 and 2050, which – depending on the level at which this peak occurred – could be consistent with a 2°C pathway.

“We only have a very limited amount of carbon that can be burned by 2050, and we calculate that current policies would exceed this budget by over 60% by that time”, Hare said. “We clearly have a lot of work to do.”

But with the rich countries failure to pay up that leaves an impossible mountain to climb for negotiators in Lima tonight. India is among those countries digging in its heels until the rich countries make much deeper cuts, and honour their financing promises.

The key question facing developing country negotiators will be whether it’s better to settle for a bad agreement, or to emerge with none at all. Past form suggests the former – but don’t count on it.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388133

COP20 extended another day – but where’s the money? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As negotiators enter into all all night session in Lima this Friday night, poor countries that are the main victims of climate change are asking the rich: “where’s the $100 billion a year you promised?”

The Green Climate Fund was announced at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 as a $100 billion a year fund that would finance poor countries adaptation to climate change and their transition to a  low carbon economy.

But so far in Lima, the rich countries have pledged just $10 billion, to be released over four years – just 2.5% of the annual sum promised. As India’s Prakash Javadekar told the Guardian, “We are disappointed. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn.”

Meanwhile the main negotiating text has scarecely progressed beyond its initial seven-page draft, with deep faultlines set between rich and poor countries.

In a nutshell, the rich countries want to keep their cash, while the poor take on emissions cuts matching their own undemanding targets.

The poor, exemplified by India, want to see the rich make deep emissions cuts and to pay up on their climate fund promises, before signing up to any emissions targets at all.

Progress has been made – but outside the UN process

The only good news is that commitments by China, the US and Europe on emissions cuts could mean significant progress towards ensuring that global average temperatures this century will rise less than predicted.

Researchers say the post-2020 plans announced recently by China and the US and the European Union mean projected warming during this century is likely to be less than expected. The downside is that, even then, the world will still not be doing enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to below 2˚C.

The research, released at the UN climate change conference currently being held in Lima, comes from the Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks countries’ emission commitments and actions.

It comes in the form of an assessment by four organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

But these commitments were made before the conference. Many had hoped that they would provide the momentum and goodwill needed to reach a wider agreement. But that never happened.

Not enough to limit warming to 2°C – but a start

Together, the four groups measured government pledges and actions against what will be needed to limit warming below the agreed international goal of a maximum 2°C increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, and against the goal of bringing warming below 1.5°C by 2100.

China – which recently announced a cap on coal consumption from 2020 – and the US and EU together contribute around 53% of global emissions. If they fully implement their new, post-2020 plans, they would limit global temperature rise to around 3˚C by 2100, which is between 0.2˚C and 0.4˚C lower than it would have been.

Their plans are more ambitious than earlier commitments, and represent what the researchers call “significant progress”. But they won’t limit warming to below 2˚C.

“In the context of increasing momentum towards a global agreement to be adopted in Paris in 2015, this represents a very important first step towards what is needed”, said Bill Hare, executive director of Climate Analytics.

“Tempering this optimism is the large gap that remains between the policies that governments have put in place that will lead to warming of 3.9°C by 2100, compared to the improvements they’ve made in their promises. These new developments indicate an increasing political will to meet the long-term goals.”

Niklas Höhne, founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said: “China’s post-2020 emissions levels remain unclear and difficult to quantify. Its peak by 2030 falls somewhat short of a 2°C pathway. However, if emissions peak just five years earlier, this could make a very big difference and move them very close to a 2°C pathway.”

Höhne added that the US, with full implementation of its proposed policies, appears likely to meet its 2020 goal of 17%. But further measures would be needed to meet its newly-proposed 2025 goals.

Targets lacking ambition – so far

The EU’s current policies put it on a trajectory towards meeting its 2020 target. But it’s not enough to meet its more ambitious conditional target of a 30% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the 40% reduction target by 2030.

Rapidly industrialising countries such as India could do more, say the reseachers. Recent discussions indicate that India had been considering putting forward next month a peak year for emissions between 2035 and 2050, which – depending on the level at which this peak occurred – could be consistent with a 2°C pathway.

“We only have a very limited amount of carbon that can be burned by 2050, and we calculate that current policies would exceed this budget by over 60% by that time”, Hare said. “We clearly have a lot of work to do.”

But with the rich countries failure to pay up that leaves an impossible mountain to climb for negotiators in Lima tonight. India is among those countries digging in its heels until the rich countries make much deeper cuts, and honour their financing promises.

The key question facing developing country negotiators will be whether it’s better to settle for a bad agreement, or to emerge with none at all. Past form suggests the former – but don’t count on it.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388133

COP20 extended another day – but where’s the money? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As negotiators enter into all all night session in Lima this Friday night, poor countries that are the main victims of climate change are asking the rich: “where’s the $100 billion a year you promised?”

The Green Climate Fund was announced at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 as a $100 billion a year fund that would finance poor countries adaptation to climate change and their transition to a  low carbon economy.

But so far in Lima, the rich countries have pledged just $10 billion, to be released over four years – just 2.5% of the annual sum promised. As India’s Prakash Javadekar told the Guardian, “We are disappointed. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn.”

Meanwhile the main negotiating text has scarecely progressed beyond its initial seven-page draft, with deep faultlines set between rich and poor countries.

In a nutshell, the rich countries want to keep their cash, while the poor take on emissions cuts matching their own undemanding targets.

The poor, exemplified by India, want to see the rich make deep emissions cuts and to pay up on their climate fund promises, before signing up to any emissions targets at all.

Progress has been made – but outside the UN process

The only good news is that commitments by China, the US and Europe on emissions cuts could mean significant progress towards ensuring that global average temperatures this century will rise less than predicted.

Researchers say the post-2020 plans announced recently by China and the US and the European Union mean projected warming during this century is likely to be less than expected. The downside is that, even then, the world will still not be doing enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to below 2˚C.

The research, released at the UN climate change conference currently being held in Lima, comes from the Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks countries’ emission commitments and actions.

It comes in the form of an assessment by four organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

But these commitments were made before the conference. Many had hoped that they would provide the momentum and goodwill needed to reach a wider agreement. But that never happened.

Not enough to limit warming to 2°C – but a start

Together, the four groups measured government pledges and actions against what will be needed to limit warming below the agreed international goal of a maximum 2°C increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, and against the goal of bringing warming below 1.5°C by 2100.

China – which recently announced a cap on coal consumption from 2020 – and the US and EU together contribute around 53% of global emissions. If they fully implement their new, post-2020 plans, they would limit global temperature rise to around 3˚C by 2100, which is between 0.2˚C and 0.4˚C lower than it would have been.

Their plans are more ambitious than earlier commitments, and represent what the researchers call “significant progress”. But they won’t limit warming to below 2˚C.

“In the context of increasing momentum towards a global agreement to be adopted in Paris in 2015, this represents a very important first step towards what is needed”, said Bill Hare, executive director of Climate Analytics.

“Tempering this optimism is the large gap that remains between the policies that governments have put in place that will lead to warming of 3.9°C by 2100, compared to the improvements they’ve made in their promises. These new developments indicate an increasing political will to meet the long-term goals.”

Niklas Höhne, founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said: “China’s post-2020 emissions levels remain unclear and difficult to quantify. Its peak by 2030 falls somewhat short of a 2°C pathway. However, if emissions peak just five years earlier, this could make a very big difference and move them very close to a 2°C pathway.”

Höhne added that the US, with full implementation of its proposed policies, appears likely to meet its 2020 goal of 17%. But further measures would be needed to meet its newly-proposed 2025 goals.

Targets lacking ambition – so far

The EU’s current policies put it on a trajectory towards meeting its 2020 target. But it’s not enough to meet its more ambitious conditional target of a 30% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the 40% reduction target by 2030.

Rapidly industrialising countries such as India could do more, say the reseachers. Recent discussions indicate that India had been considering putting forward next month a peak year for emissions between 2035 and 2050, which – depending on the level at which this peak occurred – could be consistent with a 2°C pathway.

“We only have a very limited amount of carbon that can be burned by 2050, and we calculate that current policies would exceed this budget by over 60% by that time”, Hare said. “We clearly have a lot of work to do.”

But with the rich countries failure to pay up that leaves an impossible mountain to climb for negotiators in Lima tonight. India is among those countries digging in its heels until the rich countries make much deeper cuts, and honour their financing promises.

The key question facing developing country negotiators will be whether it’s better to settle for a bad agreement, or to emerge with none at all. Past form suggests the former – but don’t count on it.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388133

COP20 extended another day – but where’s the money? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As negotiators enter into all all night session in Lima this Friday night, poor countries that are the main victims of climate change are asking the rich: “where’s the $100 billion a year you promised?”

The Green Climate Fund was announced at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 as a $100 billion a year fund that would finance poor countries adaptation to climate change and their transition to a  low carbon economy.

But so far in Lima, the rich countries have pledged just $10 billion, to be released over four years – just 2.5% of the annual sum promised. As India’s Prakash Javadekar told the Guardian, “We are disappointed. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn.”

Meanwhile the main negotiating text has scarecely progressed beyond its initial seven-page draft, with deep faultlines set between rich and poor countries.

In a nutshell, the rich countries want to keep their cash, while the poor take on emissions cuts matching their own undemanding targets.

The poor, exemplified by India, want to see the rich make deep emissions cuts and to pay up on their climate fund promises, before signing up to any emissions targets at all.

Progress has been made – but outside the UN process

The only good news is that commitments by China, the US and Europe on emissions cuts could mean significant progress towards ensuring that global average temperatures this century will rise less than predicted.

Researchers say the post-2020 plans announced recently by China and the US and the European Union mean projected warming during this century is likely to be less than expected. The downside is that, even then, the world will still not be doing enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to below 2˚C.

The research, released at the UN climate change conference currently being held in Lima, comes from the Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks countries’ emission commitments and actions.

It comes in the form of an assessment by four organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

But these commitments were made before the conference. Many had hoped that they would provide the momentum and goodwill needed to reach a wider agreement. But that never happened.

Not enough to limit warming to 2°C – but a start

Together, the four groups measured government pledges and actions against what will be needed to limit warming below the agreed international goal of a maximum 2°C increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, and against the goal of bringing warming below 1.5°C by 2100.

China – which recently announced a cap on coal consumption from 2020 – and the US and EU together contribute around 53% of global emissions. If they fully implement their new, post-2020 plans, they would limit global temperature rise to around 3˚C by 2100, which is between 0.2˚C and 0.4˚C lower than it would have been.

Their plans are more ambitious than earlier commitments, and represent what the researchers call “significant progress”. But they won’t limit warming to below 2˚C.

“In the context of increasing momentum towards a global agreement to be adopted in Paris in 2015, this represents a very important first step towards what is needed”, said Bill Hare, executive director of Climate Analytics.

“Tempering this optimism is the large gap that remains between the policies that governments have put in place that will lead to warming of 3.9°C by 2100, compared to the improvements they’ve made in their promises. These new developments indicate an increasing political will to meet the long-term goals.”

Niklas Höhne, founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said: “China’s post-2020 emissions levels remain unclear and difficult to quantify. Its peak by 2030 falls somewhat short of a 2°C pathway. However, if emissions peak just five years earlier, this could make a very big difference and move them very close to a 2°C pathway.”

Höhne added that the US, with full implementation of its proposed policies, appears likely to meet its 2020 goal of 17%. But further measures would be needed to meet its newly-proposed 2025 goals.

Targets lacking ambition – so far

The EU’s current policies put it on a trajectory towards meeting its 2020 target. But it’s not enough to meet its more ambitious conditional target of a 30% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the 40% reduction target by 2030.

Rapidly industrialising countries such as India could do more, say the reseachers. Recent discussions indicate that India had been considering putting forward next month a peak year for emissions between 2035 and 2050, which – depending on the level at which this peak occurred – could be consistent with a 2°C pathway.

“We only have a very limited amount of carbon that can be burned by 2050, and we calculate that current policies would exceed this budget by over 60% by that time”, Hare said. “We clearly have a lot of work to do.”

But with the rich countries failure to pay up that leaves an impossible mountain to climb for negotiators in Lima tonight. India is among those countries digging in its heels until the rich countries make much deeper cuts, and honour their financing promises.

The key question facing developing country negotiators will be whether it’s better to settle for a bad agreement, or to emerge with none at all. Past form suggests the former – but don’t count on it.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388133

COP20 extended another day – but where’s the money? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




As negotiators enter into all all night session in Lima this Friday night, poor countries that are the main victims of climate change are asking the rich: “where’s the $100 billion a year you promised?”

The Green Climate Fund was announced at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 as a $100 billion a year fund that would finance poor countries adaptation to climate change and their transition to a  low carbon economy.

But so far in Lima, the rich countries have pledged just $10 billion, to be released over four years – just 2.5% of the annual sum promised. As India’s Prakash Javadekar told the Guardian, “We are disappointed. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn.”

Meanwhile the main negotiating text has scarecely progressed beyond its initial seven-page draft, with deep faultlines set between rich and poor countries.

In a nutshell, the rich countries want to keep their cash, while the poor take on emissions cuts matching their own undemanding targets.

The poor, exemplified by India, want to see the rich make deep emissions cuts and to pay up on their climate fund promises, before signing up to any emissions targets at all.

Progress has been made – but outside the UN process

The only good news is that commitments by China, the US and Europe on emissions cuts could mean significant progress towards ensuring that global average temperatures this century will rise less than predicted.

Researchers say the post-2020 plans announced recently by China and the US and the European Union mean projected warming during this century is likely to be less than expected. The downside is that, even then, the world will still not be doing enough to limit the increase in average temperatures to below 2˚C.

The research, released at the UN climate change conference currently being held in Lima, comes from the Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks countries’ emission commitments and actions.

It comes in the form of an assessment by four organisations: Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

But these commitments were made before the conference. Many had hoped that they would provide the momentum and goodwill needed to reach a wider agreement. But that never happened.

Not enough to limit warming to 2°C – but a start

Together, the four groups measured government pledges and actions against what will be needed to limit warming below the agreed international goal of a maximum 2°C increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, and against the goal of bringing warming below 1.5°C by 2100.

China – which recently announced a cap on coal consumption from 2020 – and the US and EU together contribute around 53% of global emissions. If they fully implement their new, post-2020 plans, they would limit global temperature rise to around 3˚C by 2100, which is between 0.2˚C and 0.4˚C lower than it would have been.

Their plans are more ambitious than earlier commitments, and represent what the researchers call “significant progress”. But they won’t limit warming to below 2˚C.

“In the context of increasing momentum towards a global agreement to be adopted in Paris in 2015, this represents a very important first step towards what is needed”, said Bill Hare, executive director of Climate Analytics.

“Tempering this optimism is the large gap that remains between the policies that governments have put in place that will lead to warming of 3.9°C by 2100, compared to the improvements they’ve made in their promises. These new developments indicate an increasing political will to meet the long-term goals.”

Niklas Höhne, founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said: “China’s post-2020 emissions levels remain unclear and difficult to quantify. Its peak by 2030 falls somewhat short of a 2°C pathway. However, if emissions peak just five years earlier, this could make a very big difference and move them very close to a 2°C pathway.”

Höhne added that the US, with full implementation of its proposed policies, appears likely to meet its 2020 goal of 17%. But further measures would be needed to meet its newly-proposed 2025 goals.

Targets lacking ambition – so far

The EU’s current policies put it on a trajectory towards meeting its 2020 target. But it’s not enough to meet its more ambitious conditional target of a 30% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the 40% reduction target by 2030.

Rapidly industrialising countries such as India could do more, say the reseachers. Recent discussions indicate that India had been considering putting forward next month a peak year for emissions between 2035 and 2050, which – depending on the level at which this peak occurred – could be consistent with a 2°C pathway.

“We only have a very limited amount of carbon that can be burned by 2050, and we calculate that current policies would exceed this budget by over 60% by that time”, Hare said. “We clearly have a lot of work to do.”

But with the rich countries failure to pay up that leaves an impossible mountain to climb for negotiators in Lima tonight. India is among those countries digging in its heels until the rich countries make much deeper cuts, and honour their financing promises.

The key question facing developing country negotiators will be whether it’s better to settle for a bad agreement, or to emerge with none at all. Past form suggests the former – but don’t count on it.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388133

NAO investigates Hinkley C nuclear subsidies Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The National Audit Office has begun an investigation into the controversial subsidy regime for the planned new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset, a week after Brussels approved taxpayer support for the project.

The financial watchdog, which scrutinises public spending on behalf of parliament, said it would be checking whether the guaranteed prices of £92.50 a megawatt hour – double the current cost of electricity – represented ‘value for money’.

The NAO move, which follows pressure from a House of Commons committee, puts pressure on the government but has pleased green groups which believe nuclear is getting preferential treatment over windfarms.

NAO: ‘We wish to identify lessons learned’

“Our work will cover the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s commercial approach to securing this deal and the proposed terms of the contract, to report to parliament on value for money and the resulting risks which the Department must manage”, said the NAO in a formal statement.

“We will also wish to identify lessons learned to inform decisions on future ‘contracts for difference'”, it added – referring to the new funding mechanism for Hinkley and other low-carbon energy projects.

Last week the European Commission approved the subsidy scheme, citing government concessions on the project’s funding structure.

The parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) had called this week for the NAO to hold a full inquiry into the government’s deal.

Joan Walley, the committee’s chair, said the “process and outcome” of the deal, as well as whether it represents value for money, should be investigated by the UK authorities now that it has been approved by Brussels.

DECC: ‘This is all perfectly ordinary’

A DECC spokesperson said: “This month the Commission agreed that Hinkley represents a good deal for both bill-payers and investors.

“It’s perfectly ordinary for the NAO to look into large investment contracts and we will be working with them as we move closer to finalising the contract. We will not go ahead with any contract unless it is good value for money.”

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, welcomed the NAO decision, saying: “The stitch-up concocted in Brussels will see two generations of UK consumers locked into paying billions of pounds to a mainly state-owned corporation in France in order to bankroll an outdated and risky source of energy.

“This is an extraordinarily bad use of public funds and ministers will have a tough time trying to justify it. This money would be better spent on clean technologies and energy saving measures, which don’t leave a legacy of radioactive waste, and benefit the UK economy while reducing carbon emissions.”

A legal challenge is being prepared

The decision by the NAO comes just days after Ecotricity and other renewable energy firms said they were considering a legal challenge against the Hinkley financing package.

Ecotricity, a wind farm operator and energy retailer, and Solarcentury, a solar power business, said the European Commission was wrong to conclude the Hinkley C aid would not be detrimental to other low-carbon power producers.

Hinkley C – a twin 1.6GW reactor nuclear power plant planned for Hinkley Point in Somerset – has been set a funding scheme paid for by consumers that will last for 35 years, much longer than any previous schemes enjoyed by renewables companies.

But EDF, which will build and Hinkley Point C, has defended the funding. It said: “Last week’s approval from the European commission demonstrates that agreements between the government and EDF are fair and balanced for consumers and investors alike.”

 

 

Terry Macalister is energy editor of the Guardian. He has been employed at the paper and website for 12 years and previously worked for the Independent and other national titles.

This article was originally published by The Guardian. It is republished by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




385559