Advertisement

Frontiers of Engineering Management

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 19–37 | Cite as

Sufficient or insufficient: Assessment of the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) of the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters

  • Ge Gao
  • Mo Chen
  • Jiayu Wang
  • Kexin Yang
  • Yujiao Xian
  • Xunpeng Shi
  • Ke WangEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The recent Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has resulted in the submission of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of 190 countries. This study aims to provide an analysis of the ambitiousness and fairness of the mitigation components of the INDCs submitted by various parties. We use a unified framework to assess 23 INDCs that cover 50 countries, including European Union (EU)-28 countries as parties to the Convention, which represent 87.45% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. First, we transform initial INDC files into reported reduction targets. Second, we create four schemes and six scenarios to determine the required reduction effort, which considers each nation’s reduction responsibility, capacity, and potential, thereby reflecting their historical and current development status. Finally, we combine the reported reduction target and the required reduction effort to assess INDCs. Evaluation results of the 23 emitters indicate that 2 emitters (i.e., EU and Brazil) are rated as “sufficient,” 7 emitters (e.g., China, the United States, and Canada) are rated as “moderate,” and 14 emitters (e.g., India, Russia, and Japan) are rated as “insufficient.” Most pledges exhibit a considerable distance from representing a fair contribution.

Keywords

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions mitigation responsibility capacity potential 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71871022, 71471018, 71521002, and 71828401), the Social Science Foundation of Beijing (Grant No. 16JDGLB013), the Joint Development Program of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education, the Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (No. 161076), the National Key R&D Program (Grant No. 2016YFA0602603), the International Clean Energy Talent Program of the Chinese Scholarship Council, and the Key Technology Partnership Visiting Fellow Program from University of Technology Sydney and Beijing Institute of Technology.

References

  1. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S, Kemp-Benedict E (2009). Greenhouse development rights: A proposal for a fair global climate treaty. Ethics Place and Environment, 12(3): 267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, den Elzen M G J, Kram T, van Vliet J, Deetman S, Isaac M, Klein G K, Hof A, Mendoza B A, Oostenrijk R, van R B (2011). RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change, 109(1-2): 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Climate Action Tracker (2016). Assessment of mitigation contributions to the Paris Agreement. https://doi.org/http://www.climateactiontracker.org/indcs.html, 2016–10–3
  4. Davide M, Vesco P (2016). Alternative approaches for rating INDCs: A comparative analysis. FEEM Working Paper No. 018.2016. https://doi.org/ssrn.com/abstract=2745816,2016–11–5Google Scholar
  5. den Elzen M, Admiraal A, Roelfsema M, van Soest H, Hof A F, Forsell N (2016). Contribution of the G20 economies to the global impact of the Paris agreement climate proposals. Climatic Change, 137(3-4): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DESAUN (2015). World population prospects, the 2015 revision. https://doi.org/esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/
  7. Höhne N, den Elzen M, Escalante D (2014). Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: A comparison of studies. Climate Policy, 14(1): 122–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joint Global Change Research Institute (2015). Global Change Assessment Model v4.2. https://doi.org/http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/archived-models/gcam/download/, 2016–9-28
  9. Meinshausen M, Smith S J, Calvin K, Daniel J S, Kainuma M L T, Lamarque J F, Matsumoto K, Montzka S A, Raper S C B, Riahi K, Thomson A, Velders G J M, van Vuuren D P P (2011). The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change, 109(1-2): 213–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moss R H, Edmonds J A, Hibbard K A, Manning M R, Rose S K, van Vuuren D P, Carter T R, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl G A, Mitchell J F, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith S J, Stouffer R J, Thomson A M, Weyant J P, Wilbanks T J (2010). The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463(7282): 747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ott H E, Winkler H, Brouns B (2004). South–north dialogue on equity in the greenhouse: A proposal for an adequate and equitable global climate agreements. https://doi.org/www.mysciencework.com/publication/show/9551e6d8e3f764394790c3a2829ce94b, 2016–4-10Google Scholar
  12. Phylipsen G, Bode J W, Blok K, Merkus H, Metz B (1998). A triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble. Energy Policy, 26(12): 929–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ringius L, Torvanger A, Holtsmark B (1998). Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens? OECD results from three burden sharing rules. Energy Policy, 26(10): 777–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 534(7609): 631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. UNDP (2015). Human Development Data (1990–2012). https://doi.org/hdr.undp.org/en/data
  16. UNEP (2015). The Emissions Gap Report 2015: A UNEP Synthesis Report. https://doi.org/uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/theme/13/EGR_2015_-Technical_Report_final_version.pdf, 2016–11–17
  17. UNFCCC (1997). Proposed elements of a protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. https://doi.org/unfccc.int/cop4/resource/docs/1997/agbm/misc01a3.htm, 2016–3-10
  18. UNFCCC (2015). Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions. https://doi.org/unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss, 2016–12–25
  19. UNFCCC (2016). Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). https://doi.org/http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx, 2016–12–13
  20. van Vuuren D P, den Elzen MGJ, Lucas P L, Eickhout B, Strengers B J, van Ruijven B, Wonink S, van Houdt R (2007). Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: An assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change, 81(2): 119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, den Elzen M G J, Kram T, van Vliet J, Deetman S, Isaac M, Klein Goldewijk K K, Hof A, Wang K, Xian Y J, Zhang J M, Li Y, Che L N (2016). Potential carbon emission abatement cost recovery from carbon emission trading in China: an estimation of industry sector. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(3): 842–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang K, Zhang X, Wei Y M, Yu S (2013). Regional allocation of CO2 emissions allowance over provinces in china by 2020. Energy Policy, 54: 214–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winkler H, Baumert K, Blanchard O, Burch S, Robinson J (2007). What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy, 35(1): 692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winkler H, Letete T, Marquard A (2013). Equitable access to sustainable development: Operationalizing key criteria. Climate Policy, 13(4): 411–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. World Bank (2015). World Bank Open Data-GDP. https://doi.org/data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD
  26. WRI (2016). CAIT Climate Data Explore. https://doi.org/cait.wri.org/indc/
  27. Yi WJ, Zou L L, Guo J, Wang K, Wei YM (2011). How can china reach its CO2 intensity reduction targets by 2020? A regional allocation based on equity and development. Energy Policy, 39(5): 2407–2415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ge Gao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mo Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiayu Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kexin Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yujiao Xian
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xunpeng Shi
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ke Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Management and EconomicsBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.Productivity and Efficiency Measurement Laboratory, Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  4. 4.Australia-China Relations InstituteUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  5. 5.Energy Studies InstituteNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  6. 6.Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental ManagementBeijingChina
  7. 7.Sustainable Development Research Institute for Economy and Society of BeijingBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations