Polaris solar Reuters: EU-a profound commitment, but is credible?
Commitment of the European Union’s target is the most far-reaching commitments at the Paris Conference, if the objectives fully achieved, the EU can say it–to prevent global warming temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius more than the safety threshold is increased by 50% the possibility of. Because the 28 Member States of the European Union one-tenth of global greenhouse gas emissions – is second only to China and the United States, the world’s third largest body of emissions. But others questioned the trustworthiness of emission reduction plans.
Without new efforts, the EU’s own analysis shows that by 2030 carbon emissions will fall by one-third-if by 2030 the emissions trading system of carbon price of 35 euros/ton, 2050 € 100/ton. This exceeded market expectations, to raise carbon prices to that level is bound to be resisted by the industry lobbyists, who have boycotted the Commission’s commitment in the past. To achieve emission reduction targets, the EU needs to coordinate relevant policies and measures at the national and EU level, is likely to re-examine the EU 2020 renewable energy and energy efficiency legislation.
Member States of the EU can respond to industry lobbyists and potential opposition and achieve their climate commitments?
Positive European opinion polls continued to show the public supports national energy mix increasing wind and solar proportion. Also popular for energy efficiency promotion financial planning, raising energy efficiency can reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40%. But after the fossil energy coordinated action, national goals for renewable energy and energy efficiency ratio in 2030, the EU targets has declined. Shell, United Kingdom petroleum, Total and Norway State oil company hopes to greenhouse-gas emissions through a single “technology neutral” reduce greenhouse gas targets, it will encourage fuel switching from coal to natural gas. But environmentalists say that would increase the share of natural gas in the European energy mix and reduce support for renewable energy and energy efficiency. And 2030-2050 for carbon reduction and consequently becomes difficult and costs rise. Meanwhile, the European Union will be announced after the Paris Congress of land use and greenhouse gas emissions from forests into the 2030 plan. Some researchers say, doing so would reduce the EU 2030 emissions reduction target from 40% to 36%, because deforestation is used for bio-energy will increase greenhouse gas emissions.
When an object is encountered, the European Commission often on climate measures up. The past 5 years, continues to encounter resistance in Brussels-the United Kingdom Organization for energy efficiency products activity, North American lobby for tar sands, aviation industry protest against aviation carbon, and so on. Partly because the EU Member resources, traditions and interests diverge. For example Poland 90% ‘s energy comes from coal, politics believe that carbon reduction is a threat to its economic and energy arrangements. Neighbouring Germany is suffering energy reforms, the goal is to complete decarburization by mid-century, while abandoning nuclear power; however, Germany vibrant auto industry cases, Mrs Merkel is still trying to control the European Union fuel efficiency targets.
The EU has had positive results in the climate negotiations process, in comparison with 1990, EU carbon emissions one-Nineth. Any resolution to the Paris Conference of the European Union undoubtedly play an important role.
Japan–nuclear war of mediocrity under plan
Although 1997 had as host of the Summit led to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change are successful in concluding, Japan pledges at the Paris Conference this year are slightly ordinary. Japan said in a submission to the United Nations commitment to the 2030 emissions from 2013 levels 26%. Japan called the plan “ambitious”, but critics disagree. Japan Greenpeace energy campaigner, said although this goal is more mediocre, Abe is still not possible, because of their dependence on costly, dangerous nuclear energy policies unhelpful.
As the base year in 2013, Japan is the world’s fifth-biggest greenhouse gas emitter, rose to 1.41 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, reached its second-highest value. Compared to the base year 1990 and the Kyoto Protocol, Japan’s emissions reduction target of only 18%, which is 40%. Nuclear Japan energy policy has had a long-term impact. After 4.5 years at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, Japan is still trying to develop a reliable, affordable energy policy. Japan reported to the United Nations, due to the 2011 nuclear, Japan is facing great changes in energy and environment, before nuclear power for Japan supplied close to one-third energy demand, and this is expected to increase to half. Nuclear lead Japan 48 working reactors have been shut down, according to changes in the regulatory system to undergo a security check. Japan southwest of Sendai nuclear power plant reactor in August, back online, nearly two years Japan production of nuclear power for the first time. The other 20 nuclear power reset also planned. In all nuclear reactor shutdown period, Japan was forced to import large quantities of gas, oil and coal. Leadership believe that Japan must reduce reliance on expensive fossil fuel to boost the economy and meet its climate change commitments.
After Coal imports, stockpiles in Japan Iwaki City Fukushima onahama port
In Japan’s latest electricity plan, trade and industry Ministry said by 2030 nuclear power will account for 20-22% of its energy mix, renewable sources of energy – mostly hydropower will account for 22-24%, LPG was 27%. Coal will be increased to 26% per cent, an increase over the 24% before the Fukushima. Power industry accounted for Japan 40% of greenhouse gas emissions, by building the next generation of fossil fuel plants, Japan is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 11 million tons a year. Recently opposed the Ministry of environment is in 2023 and to commercial instead of the old oil-fired thermal power plant, because this will not reduce emissions, and 7,000,002 carbon dioxide emissions per year.
Russia-political and business climate makes it difficult for emission reductions achieved
As a country known for freezing temperatures, where the concept of global warming often laugh it off. Although Russia much of the political elite recognize that the seriousness of the problem, but the current economic downturn and the traditional economic thinking short term means that the political level to reduce emissions for the first unlikely.
Due to Western sanctions and falling oil prices, 2014 Russia economy is down, there is no increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, Russia’s greenhouse gas emissions increased speed is slower than economic growth, the main reason is that Mr Putin in 2000 as President, its economy has transformed from heavy industry and manufacturing to energy refining and services.
Russia promised in his report to the United Nations by 2030 compared with 1990 emissions 25-33%. Experts said that commitment is far better than politicians and business take seriously cases with low, but Russia’s political and business environment makes it impossible to achieve. The World Wide Fund for nature said businesses do not like long range planning, people scared investment, this mode of thinking is hard to short-term changes.
Tourists across red square in thick fog. Thick fog caused by the peat fire in Central Moscow
Economic downturn compression commitment. With the fall in oil prices reduced the non-necessity spending, subsidies for energy efficiency companies canceled this year, into a support network, and social benefits of the World Cup. However, a new rule requires Russia business report on greenhouse gas emissions, providing information on pollution, which Russia strongly opposed but still passed.
Russia is warming faster than the rest of the world. Russia’s Meteorological Office report found that over the last century, Russia’s average temperature is rising by 1.3 degrees Celsius, compared to a global average of 0.8 degrees Celsius. But the expansion of ice and snow in the northern areas caused many people to think that global warming is just a joke. Among those who seriously study this issue, there is a short consensus is that global warming will have much effect, but it may not happen in the medium term, means that appear every now and then it’s going to be problems in the future.
Australia–domestic policy and not as standard left little opportunity
Australia latest commitment is considered to be “weak”. The emission reduction targets for 2013, compared to other less developed countries. It is worth examining work but now it is, as the new Prime Minister, Malcolm? Turnbull, and can widely promote the policy. These policies were widely considered to be difficult to implement.
Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony? Albert announced that Australia in 2030 than in 2005 to reduce carbon emissions by 26%-28%. Malcolm? Turnbull backed the commitment.
Former Prime Minister Albert believes that changes in reducing emissions with economic growth, cannot harm the economy while protecting the environment. Meanwhile, carbon export worldwide as a result of the higher costs of climate action, should also be included in the scope of considerations. Albert comments Australia goal: “Japan is better, and New Zealand almost good, probably equivalent to Canada, slightly lower than the European a little. And the United States are almost alike. Than Korea is better. Of course, compared to China, will be hard to imagine better. ”
But that promise was Australia a lot of objections from the organization. Australia independent Government advisory body–climate change, (ClimateChangeAuthority,CCA) comments: “the goal will be Australia or are close to our own bottom always compare several countries. “The Organization has suggested an even deeper reduction target–to decline in 2030 than in 2000 between 45% and 63%.
Climate Institute think-tank, believes that the target is not scientifically credible and called it a “pathetic inadequate”. Because, in global greenhouse gas limits in order to achieve the 2 degree Celsius (the target is Australia Government to accept) control objectives under this premise, the commitment does not equitably representative of Australia should share. But the focus now is whether the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull to change Australian interests of climate policy, even if the representatives of the business community and environmental groups say slim chance to achieve the desired objectives.
Climate policy is Australia many one of the most contentious issues in politics. When in 2009 years in opposition, the Conservatives, with support for the Labour Government’s economic system of emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull lost the Liberal leadership position.
Albert take leadership of the Liberal Party from Turnbull, and went on to win the 2013 general election. Albert after the election victory, the Government Bill passed the first test was the emissions trading scheme, which finally, supported by the Green Party, adopted by the labour party in the legislative process.
Albert also seeks to substantially reduce Australia to support new energy targets, replace some of the new commercial and financial support for the objectives of the Energy Agency. Albert and some key ministers believe that wind turbines “is completely rude and ugly”, and pledged to appoint a special Commissioner to investigate the health effects of wind farms generated complaints.
Turnbull was forced to request to the conservative party, he would not reconsider that view, and insist on the Government’s so-called “direct action climate plan” to greenhouse gas emissions allocation of us $ 2.5 billion. He can change the policy in other ways, including the largest industrial emitters to set “minimum bottom line.”
Albert has described purchasing international carbon credits similar to the “sending money to the cunning of Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan carbon farmers”. Reviews Australia 2017-2018 policy announced a new goal, Albert did not stop allowing offshore licenses. Turnbull can they be incorporated into the requirements.
Labour opposition did not reveal what kind of carbon emissions after 2020 would support emission reduction targets, but spokesman Mark e Butler said that the Government’s goal is not high enough. Labour has promised that if the 2017 election win will restart an emissions trading scheme.
Australia Government to simulate its 2030 economic costs. Results show that 26% targets, would be reduced by 2030 Australia GDP 0.2%-0.3%. But also found that the same model–based on the same assumptions, if the target is 35%, will 0.3% cut-0.5%, if the emission reduction targets 45%, would reduce GDP as a whole-0.5% of total 0.7%.
Indonesia – is not clear enough, failed to address deforestation
Indonesia due to its carbon emissions by 2030, 29% less than the current forecast of commitments has been criticized, because the commitments could not be adequately addressed a large forest and Marsh erosion caused by carbon emissions.
Indonesia is the sixth-largest country and the fourth most populous in carbon emissions, tens of millions of people living in the low-lying areas of rapid urbanization. The country is also facing the growing problem of drought and growing public concern over forest fires.
Indonesia reaffirmed its commitment to rely on international support, targets increased from 29% to 41%. By 2025, renewable electricity generation accounted for at least 23%, than the percentage increase in the current energy structure four times.
Children play around a coal-fired power plant in Central Java.
Statement of commitment, Indonesia will adopt “effective spatial planning and land use, sustainable forest management,” achieving the emission reduction targets, including “social forestry project, the restoration of degraded ecosystems, improving the efficiency of agricultural and fisheries production, energy conservation, promotion of clean and renewable energy, waste management”.
But Indonesia Greenpeace says the “sweet talk” did not adequately take into account public anxiety growing forest and swamp fire, which is likely to cause respiratory diseases. Government forecasts 63% of greenhouse gas emissions is forest and bog fires and caused by land use change, but others say the proportion is as high as 80%.
The World Resources Institute (WRI) open climate network environment think tank Director of Taryn? Francen said, on this issue, “Government responsibility is encouraging.” But she added that support this policy may face “huge challenges”, and promised measures to “fuzzy than we would like to see.”
In the draft on sustainable management and protection of target of 12.7 hectares of forest was deleted in the final commitment, and there is no other quantitative commitments.
Indonesia Greenpeace activist YuyunIndradi said: “current in Sumatra and Kalimantan, the haze makes people realize that they are in dire straits. If the Government does not take more action to solve the problem of deforestation, they will suffer more pain. Commitment does not clearly explain what kind of activities or projects that achieve the goal of reducing forest fires and haze. “
(Translated from: November 2015, “United Kingdom” guardian compilation: Ministry of industry and information technology, International Center for economic and technical cooperation, song Xiaoming, Xie Pan, Huang Yantong)
Original title: national emission reduction can be achieved – Paris climate conference tracks