Policies of China, Russia and Canada threaten 5C climate
change, study finds
China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would
drive the world above a catastrophic 5C of warming by the end of the century,
according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.
Ranking of countries’ goals shows even EU on course for more
than double safe level of warming
Jonathan Watts Global environment editor
Fri 16 Nov 2018 10.00 GMT Last modified on Fri 16 Nov 2018
14.44 GMT
China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would
drive the world above a catastrophic 5C of warming by the end of the century,
according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.
The US and Australia are only slightly behind with both
pushing the global temperature rise dangerously over 4C above pre-industrial
levels says the paper, while even the EU, which is usually seen as a climate
leader, is on course to more than double the 1.5C that scientists say is a
moderately safe level of heating.
The study, published on Friday in the journal Nature
Communications, assesses the relationship between each nation’s ambition to cut
emissions and the temperature rise that would result if the world followed
their example.
The aim of the paper is to inform climate negotiators as
they begin a two-year process of ratcheting up climate commitments, which
currently fall far short of the 1.5-to-2C goal set in France three years ago.
The related website also serves as a guide to how nations
are sharing the burden of responding to the greatest environmental threat
humankind has ever faced.
Among the major economies, the study shows India is leading
the way with a target that is only slightly off course for 2C. Less developed
countries are generally more ambitious, in part because they have fewer
factories, power plants and cars, which means they have lower emissions to rein
in.
On the opposite side of the spectrum are the industrial
powerhouse China and major energy exporters who are doing almost nothing to
limit carbon dioxide emissions. These include Saudi Arabia (oil), Russia (gas)
and Canada, which is drawing vast quantities of dirty oil from tar sands.
Fossil fuel lobbies in these countries are so powerful that government climate
pledges are very weak, setting the world on course for more than 5C of heating
by the end of the century.
Only slightly better are the group of countries that are
pushing the planet beyond 4C. Among them are the US, which has huge emissions
from energy, industry and agriculture somewhat offset by promises of modest
cuts and more renewables. Australia, which remains heavily dependent on coal
exports, is also in this category.
The wealthy shopping societies of Europe fare slightly
better – largely because emissions on products are calculated at the source of
manufacture rather than the point of consumption – but the authors of the paper
say their actions lag behind their promises to set a positive example.
“It is interesting is to see how far out some countries are,
even those that are considered leaders in the climate mitigation narrative,”
said the study’s author, Yann Robiou du Pont of Melbourne University.
The study is likely to be controversial. Under the Paris
agreement, there is no top-down consensus on what is a fair share of
responsibility. Instead each nation sets its own bottom-up targets according to
a number of different factors, including political will, level of
industrialisation, ability to pay, population size, historical responsibility
for emissions. Almost every government, the authors say, selects an
interpretation of equity that serves their own interests and allows them to
achieve a relative gain on other nations.
To get around these differing concepts of fairness, the
paper assesses each nation by the least stringent standards they set themselves
and then extrapolates this to the world. In doing so, the authors say they can
“operationalise disagreements”.
Taking account of the different interpretations, they say
the world needs to commit to a virtual 1.4C target in order to achieve a 2C
goal. They hope their equity metric can be used in next month’s UN climate
talks in Katowice and in climate litigation cases.
The authors said the study could in future be extended to
the subnational level, such as individual US states. They also note that a few
key sectors are currently omitted, including land-use change (which is
fundamental in rapidly deforesting nations such as Brazil, Argentina and
Indonesia), international shipping and aviation.
Brazil is losing large tracts of natural forest to
activities such as mining, logging and agriculture.
Although the study highlights the huge gap between political
will and scientific alarm, Robiou du Pont said it should inspire rather than
dispirit people.
“The positive outcome of this study is that we have a metric
to assess the ratcheting up of ambition. Civil society, experts and
decision-makers can use this to hold their governments accountable, and
possibly undertake climate litigation cases as happened recently in the
Netherlands,” he said. “This metric translates the lack of ambition on a global
scale to a national scale. If we look at the goal of trying to avoid damage to
the Earth, then I am pessimistic as this is already happening. But this should
be a motivation to ratchet up ambition and avoid global warming as much and as
rapidly as possible. Every fraction of a degree will have a big impact.”
Commenting on the study, other academics said it could be
used by anyone to show how climate action can be navigated in a world in which
each country ranks itself based on what they consider to be fair.
“This paper provides a means for countries to check how
their contribution might be perceived by other countries and thus judge whether
they are perceived as a climate leader or laggard,” said Joeri Rogelj of
Imperial College London.
.webp)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário