Insider blogs offer timely, specialized analysis for experts on key topics.
Climate negotiators who helped craft the new Paris Agreement have long wrestled with language about the long-term goal to give guidance to investors and policymakers on what they need to do and when. There's a complex balancing act involved.
The Paris Agreement has set the world on course for transformative climate action to cut emissions, promote clean energy, build climate resilience, and catalyze climate action investments. The Agreement’s backbone is transparency and accountability on the steps countries are taking toward these goals. This transparency is vital for building international trust and confidence that action is taking place as well as for assessing how to facilitate further action.
While much of climate change discussion focused on critical issues of reducing emissions to avoid dangerous levels of warming, it is important to remember that warming is already happening, and that it contributes to worsening drought, floods, extreme weather and other serious impacts. Encouragingly, action to adapt to these impacts are also part of the discussion at the Paris climate talks currently underway.
More than ever, governments, companies and civil society organizations are committing to ambitious goals to protect the world’s remaining forests and combat emissions from deforestation.
As of this Monday, 174 countries had submitted their national climate plans to the UN, in preparation for the Paris climate summit that begins next week.
The international community has adopted a goal to limit global warming below 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels (and consider 1.5 degrees C) in order to avoid some of the worst climate impacts. However, the 2°C goal does not easily guide every day decision-making because it does not state who needs to act, by how much and by when. So negotiators are considering a second, complementary goal which would operationalize the target to limit warming below 2°C. Many have termed this a “long-term goal” which would aim to send a much clearer signal to the world what pathway key players need to follow to stay below 2°C.
Last week, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board met for its last meeting before the upcoming climate talks in Paris. Countries created the GCF to be the main global fund for climate finance, and as such, it could play a vital role in delivering the goals of an agreement in Paris. If the GCF is to be a key player in the future climate regime, it needs to show that it can effectively spend money. Is it up to the task?
This is the first time the Board is faced with approving proposals for specific activities. Are these proposals ambitious enough? Do they contribute to a paradigm shift in developing countries? Or do they fall short?
We’re now halfway towards the 2020 deadline – set in 2009 – for developed countries to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance. It’s essential to show that developed countries are keeping their commitments so developing countries know they have support for ambitious action when countries meet to forge a new global climate agreement in Paris this December. So with five years to go, how close are we to $100 billion a year? And how could we get there?
The finance stream of the UN climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany, last week showed a clearer narrative emerge about the key elements that should be included in the outcomes of the December climate summit in Paris.
So far, 56 countries (including 28 member states of the European Union) have submitted their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Reflecting the nationally determined nature of these climate contributions, they vary significantly in form, scope and coverage. Yet a key question for all of them is: Have they provided information about whether they are fair and ambitious?
Country climate commitments and pledges agreed at Paris may not keep warming below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) by themselves, but by establishing a systematic mechanism to ramp up efforts over time, countries can take collective action to avoid dangerous global warming.
WRI responds to a critique of its working paper, Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land. The paper articulates reasons the world should avoid dedicating land to bioenergy production if it is to sustainably feed the global population in 2050.
Getting Specific on the 2015 Climate Change Agreement: Suggestions for the Legal Text with an Explanatory Memorandum offers a detailed framework for key elements of a possible agreement, attempting to balance views and priorities from across the global community.
A new guidance document can help practitioners through the key steps to developing climate action commitments.