Commitments already made by world governments to cut carbon emissions aren’t enough to keep global warming below the crucial 2C target – but a strong deal is still possible in Paris, says economist.
The commitments made by world governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years are not sufficient to stave off the worst effects of climate change, a new analysis by Lord Stern has found.
The study by the author of an influential report on the economics of climate change found that countries’ pledges ahead of a crunch UN climate summit in Paris this December would not keep warming below 2C, the level that previous UN negotiations have agreed on.
But Stern said he was still optimistic that a good deal could be reached in Paris.
“There is strong action coming through in many parts of the world,” he said, pointing to the rising use of renewable energy and efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions in countries from Latin America to Asia.
“It is very important to recognise that there is still time before Paris [to strengthen a potential agreement].”
The study looks at plans so far submitted to the UN , and the commitments published by other governments but not yet formally submitted.
For the complete article, please see The Guardian.
Time is running short for countries to decide the practical details of how the Paris Agreement will be brought to life, known as the Paris “rulebook”.
The world risks crossing the point of no return on climate change, with disastrous consequences for people across the planet and the natural systems that sustain them, the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned on Monday, calling for more leadership and greater ambition for climate action, to reverse course.
China’s vision of a global energy system overemphasises the benefits of connectivity. Planners and investors also have to consider the potential impacts on biodiversity and local community livelihoods from different power generation methods and find ways to prevent them.
A new report analyses how the transition to a low-carbon economy – and the minerals and metals required to make that shift – could affect fragility, conflict, and violence dynamics in mineral-rich states.