Identifying National Responsibilities for Achieving 1.5°C Climate Target
This article explores the allocation of responsibility for limiting global warming to 1.5°C among countries, based on historical emissions and capabilities. A new measure called “additional carbon accountability” identifies the necessary reductions each country must adopt to fulfill their climate obligations. It highlights the need for high-emission nations to intensify efforts to meet their commitments, despite the lack of political will and historical accountability issues.
Thomas Hahn, an associate professor at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and his colleagues have recently explored the implications of the 1.5°C climate target in light of increasing emissions. A study published in Nature Communications discusses how accountability for limiting warming to 1.5°C can be distributed among nations based on the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), established under the UNFCCC. This principle acknowledges that while all nations share climate responsibility, their obligations vary according to historical emissions and capability to act.
The researchers introduced an innovative measure called “additional carbon accountability,” which assesses nations’ obligations against their past emissions and future commitments relative to equal cumulative per capita emissions. Their findings indicate that meeting existing national climate targets will surpass the carbon budget necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C by 576 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂). Countries including the EU, China, the US, and others must intensify their mitigation efforts and increase carbon dioxide removal strategies.
For instance, the EU must achieve additional reductions or mitigation amounting to 48 GtCO₂. Similarly, China requires an accountability of 150 GtCO₂, while the USA stands at 167 GtCO₂. The new accountability measure clarifies how different countries should address their emissions gaps, providing critical insights for ongoing climate financing discussions within the UNFCCC framework.
Traditionally, high-income nations harbor significant carbon debts, while many BRICS and upper-middle-income countries possess elevated planned future emissions. Analysis shows that while 26% of projected emissions arise from high-income nations, upper-middle-income countries contribute 38%. Countries such as China and Iran, with substantial emission plans, could significantly mitigate their responsibilities with stricter targets; however, the US and EU need to adopt more aggressive measures, including carbon dioxide removal strategies, to achieve net negative outcomes.
The study emphasizes accountability for emissions on a national basis. Unlike traditional financing debates focusing on developed versus developing countries, this analysis allocates responsibilities based on individual country accountability. Further calculations reveal the financial implications of achieving these carbon accountability targets, highlighting the exorbitant costs relative to GDP for many nations.
Despite the dire need for increased ambition and commitment to reducing emissions, political will remains lacking among many high-income countries. Most prioritize meeting existing targets, while historical carbon debts and the operationalization of the CBDR-RC principle are often overlooked. As countries like Russia and Iran show little inclination toward substantial emissions reductions, the current political climate appears unfavorable for meeting what is needed to address climate accountability effectively.
In conclusion, the study elucidates how carbon accountability can be shared among nations based on their historical and future emissions. It highlights the pressing need for high-emission countries to adopt more ambitious targets and implement carbon dioxide removal strategies to limit warming to 1.5°C. While challenges remain, particularly with political will, the introduction of additional carbon accountability offers a framework for holding nations accountable for their emissions and ensuring climate commitments are met.
Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com
