A recent study discusses how accountability for limiting global warming to 1.5°C can be allocated among countries using the CBDR-RC principle. The research introduces an “additional carbon accountability” metric, illustrating the necessity for major emitters, including the EU, China, and the USA, to enhance their climate targets significantly. High-income countries are largely responsible for historical emissions, yet their current actions may fall short without stronger commitments.
Recent articles from prominent outlets such as the Guardian and Bloomberg suggest that the 1.5°C climate target is in jeopardy due to rising emissions and insufficient commitments. A study published in Nature Communications provides insight into how accountability for long-term warming responsibility can be allocated among countries who adhere to the Common But Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle established by the UNFCCC. This principle acknowledges that while all nations share accountability for mitigating climate change, their responsibilities vary based on historical emissions and their ability to act.
The study establishes a new metric referred to as ‘additional carbon accountability,’ which assesses countries’ duties beyond current commitments by analyzing their historical emissions against equitable per capita emissions. If current national climate goals are achieved, the fossil carbon budget for maintaining a 1.5°C limit will still be exceeded by 576 billion tonnes of CO₂. As a result, countries such as the EU, China, the United States, and 15 others must strengthen their existing targets and enhance carbon dioxide removal strategies, including afforestation and advanced technological solutions like direct air capture and biochar.
For instance, the EU is required to mitigate or remove an additional 48 billion tonnes of CO₂ beyond its existing commitments, while China’s accountability stands at 150 billion tonnes, and the USA’s figure is 167 billion tonnes. The absence of a global consensus on implementing equitable measures from the Paris Agreement presents challenges. Nevertheless, the new metric rooted in the CBDR-RC serves to clarify the responsibilities of nations regarding the emissions gap and assists in controversial climate financing discussions at UNFCCC COP meetings.
High-income nations generally display substantial carbon debts, with many countries categorized as BRICS and upper-middle-income states exhibiting high future emissions. Climate advocacy has predominantly focused on persuading wealthier nations to lower emissions, yet analysis reveals that 26% of projected future emissions are from high-income countries, compared to 38% from upper-middle-income countries with significant accountability. Countries like China and Iran possess aggressive future emission plans and could significantly reduce their obligations by adopting stricter reduction targets, while wealthier nations with historic emissions need to combine tighter goals with carbon dioxide removal strategies to achieve net negative outcomes.
While past discussions about climate financing delineate responsibilities between developed and developing nations, the additional carbon accountability metric assigns liability to specific countries, focusing on individual emissions rather than collective historical debts. The assessment includes potential costs related to carbon dioxide removal or emissions reductions, indicating that for some nations like Iran and Russia, these costs could equate to multiple times their GDP, thus highlighting barriers to accountability.
Despite current political landscapes suggesting low likelihood for high-income countries to enhance their climate ambitions, circumstances could evolve. Every increment of temperature matters, and the metrics provided can also apply to other temperate goals, such as 1.7°C or 2.0°C. The study signals a critical opportunity to apply pressure on nations with substantial forthcoming emissions and necessitates accountability for the historical emissions of those with significant past contributions.
The study emphasizes that while the challenge of maintaining the 1.5°C target appears daunting, nations must confront their additional carbon accountability grounded in historical emissions and capacity. Enhanced commitments from high emitters are critical, and although current political will seems insufficient, there is potential for change. The introduction of the ‘additional carbon accountability’ indicator provides a framework for assessing national responsibilities, which is vital as every fraction of a degree in temperature has significant implications for climate stability.
Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com
