Sentences with phrase «national emission reduction commitments»

However, a clear understanding of how national emissions reductions commitments affect global climate change impacts requires an understanding of complex relationships between atmospheric ghg concentrations, likely global temperature changes in response to ghg atmospheric concentrations, rates of ghg emissions reductions over time and all of this requires making assumptions about how much CO2 from emissions will remain in the atmosphere, how sensitive the global climate change is to atmospheric ghg concentrations, and when the international community begins to get on a serious emissions reduction pathway guided by equity considerations.

The next entry in the series will look at the ethical issues entailed by the need for national emissions reductions commitments to be based on «equity» and «justice».

In the absence of a court adjudicating what equity requires of nations in setting their national climate change commitments, a possibility but far from a guarantee under existing international and national law (for an explanation of some of the litigation issues, Buiti, 2011), the best hope for encouraging nations to improve the ambition of their national emissions reductions commitments on the basis of equity and justice is the creation of a mechanism under the UNFCCC that requires nations to explain their how they quantitatively took equity into account in establishing their INDCs and why their INDC is consistent with the nation's ethical obligations to people who are most vulnerable to climate change and the above principles of international law.

One of the ethical issues raised by these facts is whether nations which may have much smaller national emissions reductions commitment obligations for the nation derived from an acceptable equity framework should nevertheless be expected to limit activities of individuals causing high levels of ghg emissions.

One of the ethical issues raised by these facts is is whether nations which may have much smaller national emissions reductions commitment obligations for the nation derived from an acceptable equity framework should nevertheless be expected to limit activities of individuals causing high levels of ghg emissions

Not exact matches

But we don't yet have a national emissions reduction target that any credible expert believes is capable of delivering on our Paris commitments for the machinery to deliver.

With a sustained national commitment, the United States could obtain substantial energy - efficiency improvements, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of existing and emerging energy technologies, according to the prepublication copy of the capstone report of the America's Energy Future project of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Enginational commitment, the United States could obtain substantial energy - efficiency improvements, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of existing and emerging energy technologies, according to the prepublication copy of the capstone report of the America's Energy Future project of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of EngiNational Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of EngiNational Academy of Sciences and National Academy of EngiNational Academy of Engineering.

All -LCB- developed country Parties -RCB--LCB- all Annex I Parties and all current European Union (EU) member States, EU candidate countries and potential candidate countries that are not included in Annex I to the Convention -RCB--LCB- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, countries that are not OECD members but whose economic development stages are equivalent to those of the OECD members, and countries that voluntarily wish to be treated as developed countries -RCB--LCB- shall -RCB--LCB- should -RCB- adopt legally binding mitigation commitments or actions including economy - wide quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives16 for the period from -LCB- 1990 -RCB--LCB- 2013 -RCB--LCB- XXXX -RCB- until -LCB- 2017 -RCB--LCB- 2020 -RCB--LCB- XXXX -RCB-, while ensuring comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances.

In addition, because each national emission reduction target commitment must be understood as an implicit position of the nation on safe ghg atmospheric concentration levels, setting national ghg emissions goals must be set with full knowledge of how any national target will affect the global problem.

This technical document provides the following information: - An update of global greenhouse gas emission estimates, based on a number of different authoritative scientific sources; - An overview of national emission levels, both current (2010) and projected (2020) consistent with current pledges and other commitments; - An estimate of the level of global emissions consistent with the two degree target in 2020, 2030 and 2050; - An update of the assessment of the «emissions gap» for 2020; - A review of selected examples of the rapid progress being made in different parts of the world to implement policies already leading to substantial emission reductions and how they can be scaled up and replicated in other countries, with the view to bridging the emissions gap.

Requires the President, beginning June 30, 2018, and every four years thereafter, to determine, for each eligible industrial sector, whether more than 85 % of U.S. imports for that sector are from countries that: (1) are parties to international agreements requiring economy - wide binding national commitments at least as stringent as those of the United States; (2) have annual energy or GHG intensities for the sector comparable or better than the equivalent U.S. sector; or (3) are parties to an international or bilateral emission reduction agreement for that sector.

The extent to which nations make ghg emissions reductions commitments based upon «equity» rather than national interest alone.

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 12 California, 7, 68, 102, 128, 169 - 170, 187, 196, 232 - 234, 245 California Energy Commission, 232 Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), 167 - 168 Cambridge University, 102 Cameron, David, 11, 24, 218 Cameroon, 25 Campbell, Philip, 165 Canada, 22, 32, 64, 111, 115, 130, 134, 137, 156 - 157, 166, 169, 177, 211, 222, 224 - 226, 230, 236, 243 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), 15 Cap - and - trade, 20, 28, 40 - 41, 44, 170, 175 allowances (permits), 41 - 42, 176, 243 Capitalism, 34 - 35, 45 Capps, Lois, 135 Car (see vehicle) Carbon, 98, 130 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), 192 Carbon Capture and Storage Association, 164 Carbon credits (offsets), 28 - 29, 42 - 43, 45 Carbon Cycle, 80 - 82 Carbon dioxide (CO2), 9, 18, 23, 49 - 51, 53, 55, 66 - 67, 72 - 89, 91, 98 - 99, 110, 112, 115, 118, 128 - 132, 137, 139, 141 - 144, 152, 240 emissions, 12, 18 - 25, 28 - 30, 32 - 33, 36 - 38, 41 - 44, 47, 49, 53, 55, 71 - 72, 74, 77 - 78, 81 - 82, 108 - 109, 115, 132, 139, 169, 186, 199 - 201, 203 - 204, 209 - 211, 214, 217, 219, 224, 230 - 231, 238, 241, 243 - 244 Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, 19 Carbon Expo, 42 Carbon, footprint, 3, 13, 29, 35, 41, 45, 110, 132 tax, 20, 44, 170 trading, 13, 20, 40, 43, 44, 176, 182 Carbon monoxide (CO), 120 Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), 44 Carlin, George, 17 Carter, Bob, 63 Carter, Jimmy, 186, 188 Cato Institute, 179 CBS, 141, 146 Center for Disease Control, 174 Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 62, 139 Centre for Policy Studies, 219 CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), 96 Chavez, Hugo, 34 Chicago Tribune, 146 China, 29, 32 - 33, 60 - 62, 120, 169, 176, 187 - 188, 211, 216, 225 - 226, 242 - 243 China's National Population and Planning Commission, 33 Chinese Academy of Sciences, 60 Chirac, Jacques, 36 Chlorofluorocarbons, 42 - 43, 50 Choi, Yong - Sang, 88 Christy, John, 105 Churchill, Winston, 214, 220 Chu, Steven, 187 Citibank (Citigroup), 40, 176 Clean Air Act, 85, 128 - 129 Clean Development Mechanism, 42 Climate Action Partnership, 14 Climate alarm, 4, 13, 21, 32, 35, 38, 56, 102 - 103, 115 - 117, 120, 137, 156, 168, 173, 182 Climate Audit, 66 Climate change, adaptation, 39, 110, 112 mitigation, 16, 39, 110 Climate Change and the Failure of Democracy, 34 Climate Change: Picturing the Science, 121 Climate Change Reconsidered, 242 Climate conference, 38 Cancun, 18, 29, 36 - 37, 124 - 125, 242 Copenhagen, 33, 36, 109, 125, 156, 158, 175, 241 - 242 Durban, 13, 36 - 37, 166, 242 - 243 Climategate, 2, 67, 152, 158 - 170, 180, 182, 242 Climate Protection Agreement, 12 Climate Research Unit (CRU), 48, 67, 120, 147, 152 - 153, 158 - 160, 162 - 163, 165 - 167, 169 Climate Science Register, 142 Climatism, definition, 2, 7 Clinton, Bill, 176, 178 Clinton Global Initiative, 176 CLOUD project, 96 Club of Rome, 21, 186 CO2Science, 59, 61 - 62, 66, 131 Coal, 19 - 20, 39 - 41, 80, 126, 128 - 129, 175, 185 - 186, 188 - 190, 192 - 196, 199 - 201, 209, 214, 217, 219, 222, 229 Coase, Ronald, 145 Coca - Cola, 138 Cogley, Graham, 156 Cohen, David, 220 Colorado State University, 117, 181 Columbia University, 7 Columbus, Christopher, 58 Computer models, 16, 51 - 53, 56, 67, 72, 74,77 - 79, 82, 87, 89 - 91, 94, 105, 110 - 111, 120, 124, 138 - 140, 168, 171,173, 181, 238, 240, 246 Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, 15 Consensus, scientific, 12 Copenhagen Business School, 134 Coral, 53 Corporate Average Fuel Economy, 22 - 23 Cosmic Rays, 72, 93 - 99, 180 Credit Suisse, 176 Crow, Cheryl, 30 Crowley, Tom, 167 Cuadrilla Resources, 224 - 225 Curry, Judith, 164, 167 Cycles, natural, 3, 16, 57, 62 - 63, 66 - 69, 72, 80, 99, 103, 138, 238, 240 Milankovich, 62, 67, 80 Cyprus, 134 Czech Republic, 12, 37

As a result there is a huge gap between national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions that have been made thus far under the UNFCCC and global ghg emissions reductions that are necessary to limit warming to 2 oC, a warming limit that has been agreed to by the international community as necessary to prevent very dangerous climate change.

(34) National Mining AssociationWashington D.C. «Commitment to Continued Mercury Emissions Reductions, and Air Quality Improvement»

«The first major review in 2018 of national mitigation commitments, which is meant to lead to governments increasing their 2025 - 2030 emission reduction targets by 2020, could be a crucial first test of the Paris Agreement's effectiveness.»

For this reason, a joint research project between Widener University Commonwealth Law School and the University of Auckland recommended in Paris that national climate commitments be stated in tons of emissions over a specific period rather than percent reductions by a given date because waiting to the end of specific period to achieve percent reductions will cause the total tons of ghg emitted to be higher than if reductions are made earlier.

In the executive summary (which can be downloaded in full here), we conclude that among the design elements the 2015 agreement should avoid because they would inhibit linkage are so - called «supplementarity requirements» that require parties to accomplish all (or a large, specified share) of their emissions - reduction commitments within their national borders.

Although there is a difference of opinion in the «equity» literature about how to consider valid equity considerations including per capita, historical emissions levels, and the economic capabilities of nations to fiance non-fossil energies, all nations agree that national commitments about ghg emissions reductions must consider fairness.

The steepness of these curves superimposed on actual national ghg emissions levels is an indication of the enormity of the challenge for the international community because the emissions reduction curves are much steeper than reductions that can be expected under projections of what current national commitments are likely to achieve if fully implemented.

In fact, the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun agreements allowed each nation to identify its emissions reduction commitment based upon voluntary national considerations without regard to equity.

China and other developing countries are unlikely to agree to binding emissions reductions, and the «national schedules» that some have proposed to take their place are unlikely to appease domestic constituencies in the United States and elsewhere concerned that domestic emissions - reduction commitments will further exacerbate the economic advantages that China and other developing economies have on their competitors in the developed world.

It would appear that some of the national commitments that are referenced in the Cancun agreements are based upon grandfathering emissions reductions from existing levels not on what justice requires of nations.

One such common approach to national ghg emissions reductions commitments that fails to satisfy any ethical scrutiny is the claim that all nations must reduce emissions by the same amount without regard to whether a nation is a large or small contributor to the climate change problem, an approach often referred to as «grandfathering» or equal reductions from existing emissions levels.

The second is making those national commitments to emissions reductions.

For instance, a recent World Bank paper recommends that climate negotiations abandon attempts to achieve national ghg emissions reductions commitments based upon «equitable» obligations after a somewhat rigorous review of the extant literature on «equity» and a brief summary of what has happened in the negotiations.

Because allocation of national ghg emissions is inherently a matter of justice, nations should be required to explain how their ghg emissions reduction commitments both will lead to a specific atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration that is not dangerous, that is, what remaining ghg CO2 equivalent budget they have assumed that their commitment will achieve, and on what equitable basis have they determined their fair share of that budget.

While there have been negotiations under way on the new agreement, there has also been an attempt to increase national commitments on greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions reductions in the short - term because mainstream science is telling nations that much greater reductions in emissions are necessary in the next few years to maintain any hope of keeping warming below 20 C, a warming limit that all nations have agreed should not be exceeded to give some hope of preventing catastrophic warming.

Seen that it will create a lot of demand for carbon credits in the future, a key issue is to ensure that emissions reductions are not counted towards both national commitments under the Paris Agreement and the targets set under the future aviation offsetting scheme.

Along this line there are several issues in particular about which greater awareness is needed including greater public understanding of the ethical implications of any nation's ghg emissions reduction commitment in regard to an atmospheric stabilization goal the commitment is seeking to achieve and the coherence or lack there of the national commitment to an acceptable equity framework.

In light of the fact that any attempt to reach consensus on the operationalization of equity will run into conflicts with national interest, the paper recommends a completely new approach that would fund a new carbon revolution while abandoning the current approach in which nations make individual emissions reductions commitments consistent with what equity requires of them.

The firs two papers looked at ethical issues entailed by the need for increasing ambition for national ghg emissions reduction commitments in the short - term and the second examined ethical issues created by urgent needs of nations to commit to significant ghg emissions reductions in the medium - to long - term.

The same naming and shaming approach to equity and national ghg emissions reductions commitments should be followed on climate change emissions reductions commitments by adopting better understanding of the ethical bankruptcy of some nations» approach to climate change.

In this regard media coverage that compares national commitments with other nations» commitments without acknowledging that equity and justice considerations could lead to morally different emissions reductions should be avoided because these comparisons are potentially misleading

The need to turn up the visibility on the ethical and equitable unacceptability of national ghg commitments is not only important to get nations to increase their emissions reductions commitments in international negotiations, it is also important to change the way climate change policies are debated at the national level when climate change policies are formed.

Each researcher answered the same 10 questions which sought to determine how equity, ethics, and justice considerations affected national policy formation on greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets and commitments and on funding adaptation, l, osses and damages in vulnerable developing countries.

Although reasonable people may disagree on what equity and justice may require of national ghg emission reduction commitments, there are only a few considerations that are arguably morally relevant to national climate targets.

Any national ghg emissions reduction commitment is implicitly a position on two ethical questions, namely, first, what safe atmospheric ghg concentration level the commitment aims to achieve and, second, what equity framework or principles of distributive justice the percent reduction is based on.

As we shall see, these countries, among others, have continued to negotiate as if: (a) they only need to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emission if other nations commit to do so, in other words that their national interests limit their international obligations, (b) any emissions reductions commitments can be determined and calculated without regard to what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, (c) large emitting nations have no duty to compensate people or nations that are vulnerable to climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

There is a 15 - 22 gigatonne gap between the current climate commitments nations made in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the respective emissions reductions needed to stay on track to limit the global temperature rise to 2C or 1.5 C. Subnational action can help bridge this gap and support national governments as they raise their climate commitments in the coming years.

A strong ethical case can be made that if nations have duties to limit their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions, a conclusion that follows both as a matter of ethics and justice and several international legal principles including, among others, the «no harm principle,» and promises nations made in the 1992 UNFCCC to adopt policies and measures required to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system in accordance with equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, nations have a duty to clearly explain how their national ghg emissions reductions commitments arguably satisfy their ethical obligations to limit their ghg emissions to the nation's fair share of safe global emissions.

We already know that current national climate commitments cover only one - third of the emissions reductions needed to achieve that target — and the IPCC report should assess the feasibility of technologies and policy options to get us there.

The obvious place to look for increases in ambition in national commitments is from nations that are obviously above emissions reduction levels that equity would require of them.

Any national ghg emissions reduction commitment is implicitly a position on two ethical questions, namely, first, what safe atmospheric ghg concentration level the commitment is designed to achieve and, second, what equity framework or principles of distributive justice the INDC is based on.

Although most nations have now made some commitments that have included ghg emissions reductions targets starting in the Copenhagen COP in 2009, almost all nations appear to be basing their national targets not on what equity would require of them but at levels determined by their economic and national interests.

Since total global ghg emissions in 2010 already stood at 50.1 GtCO2e, and are increasing every year, reaching a 44 GtCO2e target by 2020 is extraordinarily daunting and much greater ambition is needed from the global community than can be seen in existing national ghg emissions reduction commitments.

Yet hardly any nations are explaining their national ghg emissions reductions commitments on the basis of how they are congruent with their equitable obligations and the international media for the most part is ignoring this vital part of this civilization challenging drama unfolding in Warsaw.

The commitments to emissions reductions, which will be included in the Accord by the end of January (but can already be surprised from national pledges), would allow warming to reach at least 3 °C above pre-industrial levels, according to the best available science (and according to a leaked UN document).

At The Climate Reality Project we believe COP21 is our best chance yet to secure a strong international agreement that includes meaningful emissions reductions commitments based on national circumstances, a system of periodic review for these commitments and a long - term goal of net zero carbon emissions.