China, India, and Russia Aren't Interested in Updating Their Emissions Targets Before 2025
Meanwhile, the U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration is "a stage-managed nothingburger."

Glasgow - The 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) is coming to a close. The draft text outlining decisions and commitments made by the nearly 200 countries in attendance has been released. However, the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group reportedly wants to pull the section devoted to cutting emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a way to achieve temperature goals. At issue is the goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature by 2100 to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and the more ambitious effort to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The group, which includes China, Saudi Arabia, India, and Bolivia, specifically objects to the text that urges countries "to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their nationally determined contributions, as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022." The LMDC group insists that developing countries including China, India, and Russia should be allowed to stick with the original five-year plan of updating targets as outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. That would mean waiting until 2025 to hear from them. This demand is likely a last-minute negotiating tactic seeking to shake down rich countries for more climate aid to poor countries.
The draft text also notes that pledged GHG emissions are currently off track for meeting the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping temperatures below 1.5°C by 2100. Achieving that goal would require rapid, deep, and sustained reductions in global GHG emissions, including reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030 relative to the 2010 level and to net-zero around mid-century.
Humanity emitted just over 33 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2010 from burning fossil fuels. In 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the world emitted just under 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that level dropped to 35 billion tons in 2020. Cutting global emissions by 45 percent below the 2010 level would require an overall reduction of 19 billion tons by 2030. That implies a need to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by just under 2 billion tons per year until reaching an annual emissions level of around 18 billion tons in 2030. That's about the amount emitted in 1977. For reference, consider that the U.S. emitted 4.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2020.
Taking into consideration the reduction pledges made by all signatories of the Paris Agreement, the draft text also notes that the aggregate emission level of GHGs in 2020, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, is projected to be 13.7 percent above the 2010 level in 2030. In 2010, GHG emissions were 41.8 billion tons in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Co2e is a measure of how much a GHG contributes to global warming relative to carbon dioxide. For example, a molecule of methane heats the atmosphere about 25 times more over 100 years than does a molecule of carbon dioxide. On current trends, the world will be emitting 47.5 billion tons of CO2e by 2030.
At COP26, pledges to cut GHG emissions to net-zero (that is, no longer releasing GHGs unless the same amount is sequestered underground or in trees) have been made by more than 70 countries. While most (including the U.S.) set 2050 as their net-zero deadlines, China picked 2060 and India chose 2070. Recognizing that most of these net-zero pledges were at best vaguely aspirational, the draft text urges signatories to "set out pathways with plans and policies towards just transitions to net zero emissions by or around mid-century in line with the Paris Agreement temperature goal" by next year's U.N. Climate Change Conference. Interestingly, whether the 2100 average temperature increase goal is 1.5°C or 2°C is left unspecified.
The document also calls upon signatories to accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels. How likely is this? Global coal production has risen from 3.6 billion tons in 1978 to nearly 7.6 billion tons in 2020. U.S. coal production peaked at just over 1 billion tons in 2008, dropping in 2020 to just under 0.5 billion tons. This was largely a result of electric power generators switching to cheap fracked natural gas. In contrast, China's coal production increased massively from 0.6 billion tons in 1978 to 3.7 billion tons in 2020. Earlier this year, Reuters reported that the world's coal producers are currently planning as many as 432 new mine projects, with a projected 2.28 billion tons of annual output capacity.
The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2021 report calculates that keeping the world on track to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 would require shutting down 40 percent of the world's current fleet of coal-fired power plants by 2030.
On Wednesday, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry and China's climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua issued the U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s, declaring that the two countries would work together on preventing deforestation and reducing globe-warming methane emissions. In addition, the declaration states that China "will phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work." The 15th Five Year plan runs from 2026–2030, and that's exactly the same promise that China's President Xi Jinping made earlier this year.
"Two views emerged overnight. One: This was a stage-managed nothingburger. There was nothing new bar words, nothing on coal, finance, or loss and damage," said Climate Home founder and editor Ed King. "The other: The methane and forest lines are positive, as is a new diplomatic alliance and foundation forged between bitter rivals after 30 meetings in 2021." The better view is "stage-managed nothingburger."
Calling upon signatories to accelerate phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is, of course, a splendid idea. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020. Most of the IMF's estimate applies to the supposed undercharging for the fuels' environmental damages and foregone consumption taxes. Direct subsidies amount to just under $500 billion per year and those should certainly be eliminated.
Like at all previous COPs, the biggest sticking points are over money. As the LMDC gambit shows, one of the fiercest fights is over the failure of rich countries to meet the pledge made in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 that they would "mobilize" $100 billion in annual climate aid to poor countries by 2020. In 2019, the developed countries provided only $80 billion to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change. This year's draft document "emphasizes the need to mobilize climate finance…beyond USD $100 billion per year" and "calls for greater support to be channelled through grants and other highly concessional forms of finance." In other words, developing countries' governments want more free money.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Have any Reason writers/editors updated their carbon emission reductions for 2025?
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FhOL And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it.... . Visit Here
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FWO And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.EDx Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.............PAYBUZZ
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.HDa Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech )
For more details..............Pays24
It is so easy. Just say you have a carbon ceiling. Then when you hit it, vote to raise the carbon ceiling.
ISWYDT
Carbon deficits don't matter
Is that Modern Carbon Theory?
What is meeting these enissions targets supposed to accomplish?
Meet the goals and you get to go on a celebratory junket!
The intention is to keep the temp increase below the 1.5c level.
Since that is not going to happen, it appears the goal instead is to provide an opportunity for clowns to panic about why it won't happen. Which allows lots of opportunities for climate conferences and greenwashing and corruption and deceiving 16 year old autistics into believing that the panic is about the end of the world rather than 1.5c.
too bad there is no one around honest enough to say - ok 1.5c is not going to happen. What does 3.0c look like since that is what is likely to happen?
On the bright side - according to the Climate Action Tracker, there is one country that is on track to achieve its 1.5c emission goals. The Gambia.
On the not quite so bright side - no one knows what 'The Gambia' actually is. Are they a real country? Were they invited to set goals? Were they invited to COP26? Are they spies? Terrorists?
Wow, that simple comment from Michael triggered a few from the ignorable.
Moar meetings and committees needed!
And international climate conferences attended by fleets of jet planes transporting entourages.
decades of money-wasting on global warming so rich guys can party.
"...The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020..."
Sorry, that's bullshit.
From the paper:
"...Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies)..."
Not taxing =/= subsidizing
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1457609247458533378/v-KnCXWA?format=jpg&name=small
Nothing effective can happen until Communist China stops burning coal.
And nothing effective will happen among developed countries until nukes are on-line; Mr./Ms. Jones ain't gonna take cold showers regardless of public posturing to the contrary.
When the watermelons admit nukes are a large part of the solution they claim to desire, I'll start taking them seriously. Until then, they remain whiny adolescents with bumper-sticker slogans on banners.
Nah, we could go nuclear all we want. It's still not changing anything.
China burns a lot of coal.
We rank 2nd in total CO2 released and first on a per capita basis (twice China's rate per capita). China's excesses do not forgive ours.
And our excesses don't forgive the Congo's. Everyone's on board with decarbonization, or no one is on board.
"We rank 2nd in total CO2 released and first on a per capita basis (twice China's rate per capita). China's excesses do not forgive ours."
The US doesn't rank first on a per capita basis. According to this site, the US ranks 16th.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's inflammatory! I'm going to have to fact-check this statement.
I hope for his sake, the guy in the picture is wearing an organic plastic hardhat, otherwise he's opening himself up to an accessory to murder charge.
Those get togethers aren’t carbon neutral. They just want free shiny battery powered things paid for by others and provided to them by government.
The entire “carbon neutral” thing is a fucking scam too.
I’m sorry, donating to plant trees doesn’t mean your company jet fleet doesn’t release loads of CO2.
I can spray all the deodorizer I want, but it’s not going to mitigate the fact that I shit on the living room floor as a matter of course.
The only one's blowing out tons of "pollution" is politicians and the IPCC. After 50-years of DICTATORSHIP and TRILLIONS of people's labor STOLEN and resources utterly crippled the IPCC still screams "fire"...
The POWER of Propaganda.
Sure they had dogs, they had ponies but we all knew who was going to show up with puppies and foals so why do we keep thinking that one day it will change? It won't.
Net zero is a foolish target. Earth is at the outer fringe of the Sun's habitable zone. Without adequate greenhouse gasses it freezes solid to solid to the equator. Natural processes continually remove these gasses. About half our current fossil fuel emissions are lost to these processes. If we want to preserve out current CO2 level with improved crop yields and little warming we need to continue about half our current fossil emissions into the future or pray for fortuitous volcanoes.
Saudia Arabia and India will be uninhabitable by 2035 if we don’t arrest greenhouse emissions.
Bullshit
Do you have any evidence to support that? I am seriously interested in any real information — ie, not produced by fossil fuel companies or the Republican Party — that would give me some hope that the planet isn’t screwed.
“Great share!”
“Useful post”