Why No Nation Should Wait to Set Emissions Reduction Targets
By Kelly Levin and David Waskow
As countries negotiate a new international climate agreement for the post-2020 period—including at this week’s intersessional meeting in Bonn, Germany—the key choices for putting the world on a secure pathway to a low-carbon future should be front-of-mind.
The new agreement will be essential for putting in place the policies beyond 2020 that ensure a shift from high-carbon to low-carbon and climate-resilient investments. To do this, the agreement will have to send the right signals to governments and businesses about the trajectory we need to be on.
With that in mind, a central question facing the international community is: What will the time frames be for countries’ post-2020 emissions-reduction contributions?
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
Now is the time to begin answering this question, as countries are required to propose their emissions-reduction contributions by March 2015. Getting the time frames right is essential to ensuring that the international climate agreement is both effective and ambitious. Should these contributions—which will begin in 2020—cover a period of five years to 2025? Or a period of 10 years to 2030? Or some combination? And should the agreement also include a long-term collective goal, such as phasing out greenhouse gas emissions by 2050?
The answers to these questions hold significant consequences for the future of climate change action. It’s imperative that countries take them into account—both in Bonn this week and at future UNFCCC meetings.
What Emissions Pathways Do We Need in the Short-, Medium- and Long-term?
To consider the pros and cons of various time frames, it’s essential to keep in mind the emissions levels that allow us to meet the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) goal of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees fahrenheit). Exceeding this target would put the world at an increased risk of forest fires, extreme weather and other climate change impacts.
According to the U.N. Environment Program’s recent Emissions Gap Report, global emissions in 2020 should be 44 global total carbon dioxide emissions (GtCO2e) on average for a likely chance of meeting the 2 degrees Celsius target. In 2025, emissions should be 40 GtCO2e on average and drop to 35 GtCO2e by 2030. (A decline of 5 GtCO2e is equivalent to eliminating emissions from all of the world’s cars, buses, and trucks in 2005). By 2050, emissions levels should fall to 22 GtCO2e in order to stay within 2 degrees of warming. For context, emissions in 2010 were roughly 50 GtCO2e.
The scientific community is clear about what needs to be done by when, but what time frame for national contributions is best to put us on the right path and achieve the necessary emissions reductions?
Based in part on research gathered for the GHG Protocol’s Mitigation Goals Accounting and Reporting Standard, we outline the pros and cons of a 2025 versus 2030 contribution time frame, as well as the possibility of an alternative that combines the two. In a later blog post, we’ll also look at the issue of a longer-term collective goal, such as for 2050.
Pros and Cons of a 2025 End Date
The 2025 end date has a number of pros and cons. Some of the positives include:
It can mobilize investment and planning for emission reductions, particularly for investments that operate based on relatively short investment horizons (such as some renewable energy investments). It can also encourage a quicker phase-out of inefficient practices and technologies.
It also may be more consistent with the timing of some low-carbon development strategies (e.g. China’s Five Year Plans) and, relatedly, it could be easier to get buy-in from domestic constituencies, especially if the 2025 contribution is in line with commitments already made domestically. Accordingly, a 2025 end-date could provide greater certainty of targets being achieved given that they may build on efforts already underway to meet countries’ 2020 commitments and other existing policies.
Importantly, the 2025 end-date provides more certainty of the emissions trajectory and, in turn, the carbon budget being used up. Short-term contributions can also help prevent emissions from rising continuously during the contribution period and then decreasing sharply in the target year.
It avoids lock-in of low ambition targets for too long a period. If the level of effort parties put forward for the 2015 agreement are not significantly ambitious, it may be better to have a shorter-term commitment while greater political will is built for the next round.
However, a shorter time-frame is not without disadvantages:
It may not facilitate longer-term investments for large, structural changes because the time frame may not be sufficient to include the lifecycle of large-scale capital investment projects.
While a 2025 end-date could facilitate learning by doing through an evaluation of efforts, it may not be consistent with longer-term, low-carbon strategies.
Further, it does not provide long-term guidance for future policymakers, nor guarantee a long-term commitment for emissions reductions. It could reopen negotiations prematurely, potentially distracting from implementation and posing risks to reaching agreement on a next set of contributions.
Perhaps most problematic, a short-term time frame may not lead to significant additional ambition if policies and technologies already required for 2020 commitments continue to deliver substantial emissions reductions by 2025. And it may drive political leaders to commit to only modest levels of emissions reductions because they are the ones accountable to meeting those commitments (as opposed to more aspirational commitments on a longer-term time frame, when they will no longer be in office).
Pros and Cons of a 2030 End Date
A medium-term time frame could last a decade or so. In the context of post-2020 contributions, 2030 could be considered a medium-term time frame. Advantages and disadvantages of a medium-term time frame are in many ways the opposite of those of a short-term timeframe, but some unique aspects also come into play.
On the plus side:
A 2030 end date would better facilitate long-term planning for large, structural changes and capital investments and provide greater certainty for businesses and other stakeholders about the longer-term policy and investment context.
It could mitigate the risk of unpredictable events, like an economic downfall, during any given year, making achievement of the commitment easier. And it may allow for more energy, time, and resources devoted to implementation, rather than continuous negotiations of short-term contributions.
A medium-term time frame could also lead to greater ambition, as policymakers may be willing to make more ambitious commitments for dates farther in the future.
However, there are a number of possible disadvantages of the 2030 time frame:
It could encourage later phase-outs of less efficient practices and/or technologies, as it may not provide sufficient incentive for quick mobilization of investments if the emissions-reduction goals are considered to be too far in the future and not an immediate concern.
It may also not provide sufficient detail in the short term for some investments. As a result, it may not encourage early adoption of efficient technologies that could yield greater aggregate emission reductions over the contribution period.
A medium-term time frame also runs the risk of not being adopted by future political leaders. Additionally, it may not be consistent with the time frame of low-carbon plans and policies, which may span a shorter number of years.
Importantly, it may not ensure a pathway that leads to significant annual reductions if reductions don’t occur until the very end of the time frame (e.g., if single year targets are adopted, such as with a target that limits emissions in only one year (e.g. 2030) as opposed to multiple years (2026-2030), parties can make a steep decline in emissions at the end date of the target period but still contribute significant emissions levels during the period leading up until then. While this is still the case for a short-term time frame, there is less time for emissions to build up in the interim years.
Best of Both Worlds? Coupled 2025 and 2030 Contributions
While both time frames have considerable advantages and disadvantages, one potential solution—taking the best of both approaches—is to encourage countries submitting both short- and medium-term contributions, one for 2025 and one for 2030. Given the strengths of each time frame, this approach could, in fact, be the likeliest to yield robust outcomes.
There is precedent for the adoption of coupled targets, as some countries currently have both 2020 and 2050 goals. For example, as part of its domestic climate policy, the UK has embraced a series of short-term targets on the way to meeting a long-term goal of reducing its emissions at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Coupled short-, medium-, and long-term contributions can help ensure that a certain emissions pathway is met, which can in turn limit cumulative emissions to the atmosphere over time.
If parties were to pursue coupled short- and medium-term contributions, parties might decide to have one target be fixed and the other indicative. For example, a 2025 contribution could be the one that is more formally inscribed under the agreement, but the 2030 contribution is indicative of the emissions pathway of the country, with a provision for later adjustment if they are in a position make even more ambitious emissions cuts. This could have the advantage of providing investors with long-term signals, while also allowing decision-makers to adopt a more ambitious medium-term target than they otherwise would because there would be a longer period to put needed policies in place. The risk may be that politicians create distractions by putting forward ambitious indicative targets—which may be subject to change—and draw attention away from meager, short-term targets.
Or one could take an alternative approach—making the 2025 contribution an indicative milestone along a pathway toward the 2030 contribution, which the party is accountable for. The question that remains is whether Parties would be ambitious today with a 2030 contribution, especially considering that countries’ current emissions-reduction commitments fall far short of the necessary reductions for limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Would a better outcome be reached if the global community negotiated the medium-term targets or revised them upwards at some point in the future if they are in a position to take more significant action?
A third choice is for the 2025 and 2030 targets to have equal standing as fixed commitments, given the risks inherent in indicative targets. While Parties may not be as ambitious as they would be with an indicative contribution, there would be more certainty. And there could be a mechanism built into the UNFCCC that enables—and encourages—Parties to come forward with increased ambition over time if they are in a position to do so. The idea of a mechanism to continuously ratchet up ambition over time is currently under discussion in the UNFCCC negotiations and should be considered together with the time frames.
Also, it is worth noting that while the spotlight regarding the post-2020 mitigation contributions is focusing on the 2025 versus 2030 timeframe, it is essential that commitments for even longer-term time frames be secured if we are to embrace a roadmap that will shift the world toward a low-carbon future. Indeed, significant dialogue has now begun on how to entirely phase out net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which has been found to be technically and economically feasible (watch for our forthcoming blog post on this topic).
It is our hope that these considerations will be taken into account by negotiators when determining the next set of contributions. After all, this is the critical decade for preventing some of the most dangerous climate risks from being locked in for future generations.
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- 29 Wildfires Blaze Across the West, Fueled by Drought and Wind ... ›
- Large Wildfires Scorch Forests in Drought-Stricken Southwest ... ›
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. mixetto / E+ / Getty Images
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. New research has found that 5.4 million Americans were dropped from their insurance between February and May of this year. In that three-month stretch more Americans lost their coverage than have lost coverage in any entire year, according to The New York Times.
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- 'Unfathomable Cruelty': Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to ... ›
On hot days in New York City, residents swelter when they're outside and in their homes. The heat is not just uncomfortable. It can be fatal.
- Extreme Heat-Stressed Locations Could Increase by 80% - EcoWatch ›
- African Americans Are Disproportionately Exposed to Extreme Heat ... ›
- Extreme Heat Is Killing Americans While Government Neglect ... ›
Fracking companies are going bankrupt at a rapid pace, often with taxpayer-funded bonuses for executives, leaving harm for communities, taxpayers, and workers, the New York Time reports.
- Plunging Oil Prices Trigger Economic Downturn in Fracking Boom ... ›
- Fracking Boom Bursts in Face of Low Oil Prices - EcoWatch ›
- As Fracking Companies Face Bankruptcy, U.S. Regulators Enable ... ›
A report scheduled for release later Tuesday by Congress' non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the Trump administration undervalues the costs of the climate crisis in order to push deregulation and rollbacks of environmental protections, according to The New York Times.
- Under Trump, EPA Workers Seek Bill of Rights to Allow Them to ... ›
- Trump Adds 'Tasteless Insult to Injury' by Pushing Fossil Fuel ... ›
By Kristen Fischer
It's going to be back-to-school time soon, but will children go into the classrooms?
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) thinks so, but only as long as safety measures are in place.
Keeping Schools Safe<p>What will safer schools look like?</p><p>In a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766822" target="_blank">JAMA article</a> published last month, <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1781/joshua-m-sharfstein" target="_blank">Dr. Joshua Sharfstein</a>, a pediatrician and professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, outlined suggestions — many of which are similar to AAP's.</p><p>Remote learning protocols must stay in place, especially as some schools stagger home and in-building learning. If another shutdown needs to occur, children will rely on distance learning completely, so it must be easy to switch to, he said.</p><p>He suggested giving parents a daily checklist to document their child's health. Kids should be screened quickly on arrival and be given hygiene supplies. Maintenance staff should use appropriate PPE and have regular cleaning schedules. A notification system should be in place if a case is identified, Sharfstein recommended.</p><p><a href="https://www.albany.edu/rockefeller/faculty/erika-martin" target="_blank">Erika Martin</a>, PhD, an associate professor of public administration and policy at University at Albany, said nutrition assistance and health services should be included. She called for tutoring programs with virtual options as well as technology access.</p>
Supporting Staff<p>Teachers and staff will be affected by safeguarding measures, noted <a href="https://directory.sph.umn.edu/bio/sph-a-z/rachel-widome" target="_blank">Rachel Widome</a>, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology and community health at University of Minnesota.</p><p>"In order for all of the in-school precautions to work well, we'll be asking a lot of teachers and staff," Widome told Healthline. In addition to their usual workload, they'll now be asked to monitor mask-wearing, ensure children are keeping distance, and be aware of any symptoms.</p><p>Along with Sharfstein, Widome called for an increase in financial support. More employees will likely be required so teachers and staff members can keep up with the added demands.</p>
Should Kids Go Back?<p>While these guidelines may help get some schools to reopen, many people don't think children should go back to school over fears they could contract the disease and spread it to other vulnerable family members like grandparents, infant siblings, or their parents.</p><p>In a <a href="https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-004879" target="_blank">Pediatrics</a> commentary, <a href="https://www.md.com/doctor/william-raszka-md" target="_blank">Dr. William V. Raszka, Jr.</a>, an infectious disease specialist at The University of Vermont Medical Center, argued that schools should open because school-aged children are far less important drivers of COVID-19 than adults.</p><p>But he says the risk and benefit is not equal among all students ages 5 to 18.</p><p>"Elementary schools are arguably higher priority for face-to-face schooling, since younger children are at lower risk for infection and transmission, and since parental supervision of younger children's distance learning may be particularly challenging," added Sorensen, who penned a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2767411" target="_blank">June article in JAMA</a> with reopening tips. "That means middle and high schools are more likely to emphasize distance learning."</p><p>Specific student populations, such as special education students and students with disabilities, would also benefit greatly from more time spent in face-to-face environments, Sorensen said.</p>
What Parents Can Do<p>Parents should ask for and receive frequent updates from schools about plans for the fall. They should also be informed about plans if and when COVID infections are identified, Sharfstein said.</p><p>"I'd like to see parents investing now, during the summer, in doing things that can slow and stop the spread of the virus in their communities," Widome said.</p><p>"Now is a good time for kids to practice wearing masks and get used to them as they may be wearing them for longer stretches if school starts up in person," Widome suggested.</p><p>She recommends parents try different mask designs and materials to see what children are more comfortable wearing.</p><p>"If you are using cloth face coverings, it's good to have extras on hand," Widome added.</p><p>Parents should model healthy behavior at home and while out in public — another thing that could affect how well children adapt to reopening practices, Sorensen said.</p><p>"Children may want to know more about face coverings," added <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leescott/" target="_blank">Lee Scott</a>, chairwoman of the Educational Advisory Board at <a href="https://www.goddardschool.com/" target="_blank">The Goddard School</a>. "Dramatic play, such as creating or wearing a face covering, may help some children adjust to this concept." Schools can also show children photos of what faculty members look like in their masks so the students are familiar with that appearance.</p><p>Johns Hopkins University recently released its eSchool+ Initiative, a slew of resources surrounding education during the pandemic. These include a <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/reopening-checklist/" target="_blank">checklist for administrators</a>, report on <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/ethics-of-reopening/" target="_blank">ethical considerations</a>, and a tracker of <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/reopening-policy-tracker/" target="_blank">state and local reopening plans</a>.</p>
- Trump Admin Rejects CDC Reopening Guidelines - EcoWatch ›
- How Do You Stay Safe Now That States Are Reopening? - EcoWatch ›
- Florida Breaks U.S. Daily Record With Over 15,000 New ... ›
By Eoin Higgins
Over 300 groups on Monday urged Senate leadership to reject a bill currently under consideration that would incentivize communities to sell off their public water supplies to private companies for pennies on the dollar.
<div id="fea63" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9a6f211c2bc5aedd34837944cb8eeedf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1281000111481294849" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Water in Illinois is overwhelmingly public. Why is Tammy Duckworth sponsoring a bill that aims to change that? https://t.co/1V36Kkd99s</div> — The American Prospect (@The American Prospect)<a href="https://twitter.com/TheProspect/statuses/1281000111481294849">1594249201.0</a></blockquote></div>
- DNC Ignores Progressive Climate Activists - EcoWatch ›
- Who's a Climate Champion and Who's a Climate Disaster? - EcoWatch ›