Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The Paris Accords and INDCs

As ever Gwen, many thanks for your follow-ups.

I'll be going quiet as I have a busy few days ahead. I hope to resume comments from the weekend.

Will have to brush up on my Spanish, as Guatemala is coming up soon, and they haven't provided an English translation. Oh well, it exercises my ageing brain...

Jul 19, 2017 at 8:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson, I'll start on Guatemala!

Guatemala, extracts lifted from Wikipedia:

"In June 2016 a United Nations-backed prosecutor described the administration of Pérez Molina to a crime syndicate and outlined another corruption case, this one dubbed Cooperacha (Kick-in). The head of the Social Security Institute and at least five other ministers pooled funds to buy him luxurious gifts such as motorboats, spending over $4.7 million in three years."

"From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala endured a bloody civil war fought between the US-backed government and leftist rebels, including genocidal massacres of the Maya population perpetrated by the military."

"Since a United Nations-negotiated peace accord, Guatemala has witnessed both economic growth and successful democratic elections, though it continues to struggle with high rates of poverty, crime, drug trade, and instability."

"As of 2014, Guatemala ranks 31st of 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries in terms of the Human Development Index."

"In some areas such as Baja Verapaz, the Truth Commission found that the Guatemalan state engaged in an intentional policy of genocide against particular ethnic groups in the Civil War."

"In 1999, U.S. president Bill Clinton said that the United States had been wrong to have provided support to the Guatemalan military forces that took part in these brutal civilian killings."


"Guatemala's location between the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean makes it a target for hurricanes such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and Hurricane Stan in October 2005, which killed more than 1,500 people. The damage was not wind-related, but rather due to significant flooding and resulting mudslides. The most recent was Tropical Storm Agatha in late May 2010, which killed more than 200."

"Guatemala's highlands lie along the Motagua Fault, part of the boundary between the Caribbean and North American tectonic plates. This fault has been responsible for several major earthquakes in historic times, including a 7.5 magnitude tremor on 4 February 1976 which killed more than 25,000 people."

"In addition, the Middle America Trench, a major subduction zone lies off the Pacific coast. Here, the Cocos Plate is sinking beneath the Caribbean Plate, producing volcanic activity inland of the coast. Guatemala has 37 volcanoes, four of them active: Pacaya, Santiaguito, Fuego andTacaná. Fuego and Pacaya erupted in 2010."

"Natural disasters have a long history in this geologically active part of the world. For example, two of the three moves of the capital of Guatemala have been due to volcanic mudflows in 1541 and earthquakes in 1773."

*Greed, corruption, war, revolution etc causes more deaths than natural disasters. Guatemala is not unique in this respect. Natural disasters do not seemed to have increased with Global Warming.*
But, from:

"Guatemala: Oil Companies and the Subservience of the Government"
"Guatemala is the only oil-producing country in Central America, with “black gold” being its fourth highest export. And according to a study conducted by Sarah Aid and Adrian Boutereiva, Guatemala is located on an old geological belt across which 75% of the world’s oil reserves can be found. Oilwatch Mesoamerica has pointed out the discrepancy between statistics distributed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) on oil extraction and a growing corporate presence, which seems to indicate a poorly-hidden black market for buying and selling oil. Regardless, it is undeniable that the four oil companies established in the country—Perenco Guatemala Limited, Compañía General de Combustibles, Petro Latina Guatemala Corp., and Petro Energy S.A.—delight in the favorable conditions available to them: for example, 1% royalties, and ‘environmental impact studies’ that end up providing very little by way of requirements for the companies."

Jul 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Whilst Mark Hodgson takes a break.....

Rightly or Wrongly, Foreign Aid money has always been a carrot waved in front of other Nations, by more wealthy Nations, seeking co-operation. Its withdrawal has also been a stick to wave as a threat.

The United Nations is hoping to have 100s of Billion$ to give away, to promote worldwide peace and equality etc. Who is going to judge this World Poverty Pageant/Competition, given that nothing has happened to justify the awarding of any prizes?

Jul 20, 2017 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc, thanks for keeping my seat warm. I'll try to link Guatemala's INDCs with your input, but first, Sao Tome and Principe ("STP") (who have thankfully provided an English translation). INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015.

Their introductory paragraph pretty much says it all (including claiming to be one of the states most at risk from climate change despite being a "carbon sink"):

"Sao Tome and Principe (STP) is a small island state consisting of two islands and several islets located in the Gulf of Guinea, with an area of 1001 km. With a total population of about 187,356 inhabitants, of which over 65% are below the poverty line, and less than 50% have access to electricity services. GDP growth is around 4% which is not sufficient to meet STP's major development needs. Furthermore over 90% of the State Budget (OGE) come from foreign aid and the debt rate is high (70% of GDP). The country is an absolute sink of greenhouse gases, i.e. it contributes to the sequestration of CO2 but on the other hand it is one of the countries most affected by climate change (CC)."

Perhaps unsurprisingly in view of their poverty and their "carbon sink" status, they offer no unconditional mitigation activities. "The contributions of STP with regard to mitigation are conditioned by financial support, technological support
and capacity-building that the country will receive from abroad."

Their Business as Usual scenario envisages their GHG emissions increasing by around 150%, though they will remain a "carbon sink", as their emissions will still be extremely low. Their conditional offer represents a reduction in emissions of around 24% against a Business as Usual scenario, though that still represents a significant proportionate increase in absolute terms. The net extent of GHG emissions "sink" value will reduce by around 1/3 by 2030 on the basis of their conditional offer.

"To implement the above listed mitigation activities, it is estimated that a total investment of not less than US$ 59 million in the form of external aid will be required between 2020 and 2030."

That's not a lot of money in the scheme of things, but then again in terms of what it will achieve (or, more accurately, fail to achieve) regarding GHG emissions, it doesn't look like value for money either. On the other hand, by my calculation, it's around $300 per person on STP, so compared to other countries' requests for money, it's also pretty small. STP is definitely a small player in this game.

Jul 23, 2017 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Jul 23, 2017 at 9:27 AM | Mark Hodgson

I had never heard of Sao Tome and Principe! A former Portuguese colony, with major links to the slave trade, its rich volcanic soil was fertile and suitable for the cultivation of cash crops such as cocoa.

I presume that its location in the Gulf of Guinea made it a convenient stop over for merchant sailing ships on the way in and out of the Gulf countries, but not as a stop over for European Nations trading beyond the Cape of Good Hope.

STP convinced itself that an oil boom was imminent, as this Guardian article from 2008 explains. Nothing good happened then, and nothing much has happened since.

"Yet São Tomé's bitter experience should serve as a cautionary tale. In the decade since a little known Texas oil firm wandered into government offices with an audacious plan, the 160,000 inhabitants of the lush, somnolent islands have seen dreams of their country becoming the next Brunei or Kuwait melt away in the equatorial sun.

Their leaders have signed some of the most lopsided petroleum contracts in history. Bribes have allegedly been offered and pocketed. Regional bullies have muscled in, and in May the government fell to a no-confidence vote. "We have already seen everything that goes with an oil boom," said Rafael Branco, the newly appointed prime minister. "Everything, except a single drop of oil."

Wikipedia has interesting comments about STP agriculture and economics:
●The main crop on São Tomé is cocoa, representing about 95% of agricultural exports. Other export crops include copra, palm kernels, and coffee.
●Domestic food-crop production is inadequate to meet local consumption, so the country imports most of its food.
●The São Toméan Government has traditionally obtained foreign assistance from various donors, including the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the European Union (EU), Portugal, Taiwan, and the African Development Bank. ●In April 2000, in association with the Banco Central de São Tomé e Príncipe, the IMF approved a poverty reduction and growth facility for São Tomé aimed at reducing inflation to 3% for 2001, raising ideal growth to 4%, and reducing the fiscal deficit.

It is unfortunate that STP did not achieve wealth through oil.

From this WorldBank report

this wonderful contradiction in terms
São Tomé and Príncipe - Power Sector Recovery Project.
"The objectives of the Power Sector Recovery Project for Sao Tome and Principe are to (i) increase renewable energy generation and (ii) improve the reliability of the electricity supply. "

With no oil of their own to burn, STP does need solar/wind/hydro etc. By combining all three, they might even make a limited supply of electricity reliable. It would be nice to think that the EU was assisting with something useful in these remote African islands.

Jul 23, 2017 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie

Thank you as always for your input. I've finally turned to Guatemala, as promised (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015). From your contribution, I have to sympathise with the inhabitants of that apparently benighted country.

As mentioned previously the INDCs are in Spanish, so I'll have to keep it short, for the usual reason of seeking to avoid misleading anyone by virtue of attempting to be over-ambitious and translating more than I'm good for.

I can, however, understand enough to see that they say they contribute less than 0.1% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (and that their per capita emissions are significantly less than the average of Caribbean and Latin American countries), and that nevertheless they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

They provide information (supplemented helpfully by a graph, to ensure I haven't misunderstood) regarding 2005 levels of GHG emissions, anticipated growth rates, and emissions levels at 2030 on a Business as Usual basis. BaU would see GHG emissions increasing by 2030 by approximately 70%. The unconditional offer would see a lower increase of approximately 50% and the conditional offer would see a still lower increase of approximately 30%.

It is apparent that they seek international finance and help to achieve these lower increases, but the amounts required are not - so far as I can see - stated.

Jul 23, 2017 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Israel next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015). They run to less than 5 full pages, so can be summarised relatively briefly. The following forms the thinking behind their proposals:

"Israel contributes about 0.2% of global emissions. Israel's projected annual population growth is 1.8%, which is considerably higher than the OECD average. The assumption is that by 2030, Israel's population will be approximately 10.6 million as compared to 7 million in 2005 and 8.4 million in 2015. The annual GDP growth per capita is currently 1.7% and is also growing at a faster rate than the OECD average.
Considering this projected growth in population and GDP, we believe that a per capita target for GHG emissions reduction is fair and appropriate for Israel."

Having decided that per capita reductions rather than absolute reductions are in order, their offer is still quite impressive:

"Israel intends to achieve an economy-wide unconditional target of reducing its per capita greenhouse gas emissions to 7.7 tCO2e by 2030 which constitutes a reduction of 26% below the level in 2005 of 10.4 tCO2e per capita. An interim target of 8.8 tCO2e per capita is expected by 2025.
According to the most recent national greenhouse gas inventory prepared by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel's greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 were 83.04 MtCO2e, which is equivalent to 10.5 tCO2e per capita. Under an updated Business as Usual (BAU) scenario greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase to 105.5 MtCO2e in
2030. This will be equal to 10.0 tCO2e per capita. Implementation of Israel's national target will result in a reduction of 23.85 MtCO2e in 2030 bringing total emissions down to 81.65 MtCO2e."

In other words, despite an anticipated significant increase in population, they are proposing a very slight reduction in GHG emissions - in absolute terms - by 2030. How will they do this?

"It is anticipated that the implementation plan will consist of, inter alia, the following:
 The establishment of mechanisms leveraging large scale private funding together with public funding of energy efficiency projects;
 A program of tenders for renewable energy. The 17% renewable energy target is substantially more ambitious than Israel's current 10% target for 2020;
 Removal of barriers for the uptake of renewable energy;
 Measures to increase the use of natural gas. The recent discovery of additional natural gas reserves off the coast of Israel has and will continue to contribute to a partial switch from coal to natural gas in Israel's fuel mix and which contributed to GHG emissions reduction between 2012 and 2015. The government is now working on the further development of gas fields, expected to have significant mitigation potential;
 Further development of public transport systems in major metropolitan areas such as the construction of the Tel Aviv
metropolitan light rail; the extension of the intercity rail system and of the Jerusalem light rail."

The development of their own natural gas fields would seem to be a very important element in the plan, given this:

"Israel is a small and densely populated country characterized by an expanding population and economic growth, facing land and water scarcity. Arid zones comprise over 45% of the area of the country while there is an exceptionally high degree of biological diversity that must be protected.
Electricity generation has been largely based on imported fossil fuels as Israel has no access to a number of widely used low-carbon sources of energy such as nuclear, hydro-electric and geothermal power. The country is an energy island, without the possibility of grid interconnectivity. There is limited surface area available for large-scale energy installations. The few available areas are subject to competing uses such as industrial development and housing, bio-diversity preservation, habitat conservation, agriculture and defense.
For many years, there has been significant use of solar heaters for water heating and greenhouse gas emissions from this source are substantially lower than the global average. An additional factor limiting Israel's abatement potential is its small heavy industry sector with relatively low emission levels."

So, a decent offer in the circumstances, in my view. And I can't see them asking for money - at least if they are, the request isn't contained within the INDCs.

Jul 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Israel. It is easy to find dishonest opinions about Israel.
The US Presidential opinion about Israel has recently changed, and when Israel submitted its INDCs, I don't think there was much expectation.

However ......
"The Israel Electric Company IEC is one of the largest industrial companies in Israel, owning and operating an extensive nationwide power distribution network fed by 17 power station sites (including 5 major thermal power stations) with an aggregate installed generating capacity of 10,899 MW. Most of the base load electricity is generated using coal, though by the end of 2010 the company expected the majority (55%) of total installed generation capacity to be in the form of natural gas plants." The website contains other info about deliberate power-cuts in Palestinian territories.

Where does the gas come from?
"Historically, Israel relied on external imports for meeting most of its energy needs, spending an amount equivalent to over 5% of its GDP per year in 2009 on imports of energy products.[4] The transportation sector relies mainly on gasoline and diesel fuel, while the majority of electricity production is generated using imported coal. As of 2013, Israel was importing about 100 mln barrels of oil per year.[5] The country possesses negligible reserves of crude oil but does have abundant domestic natural gas resources which were discovered in large quantities starting in 2009, after many decades of previously unsuccessful exploration"

"Natural gas in Israel is a primary energy source in Israel. As of 2014, Israel produced over 7.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas a year[1] and exported natural gas only to thePalestinian territories.[2] Israel had 199 billion cubic meters (cu m) of proven reserves of natural gas as of the start of 2016.[3]"

The National Coal Supply Corporation procures all coal on the world market.

I have no idea about the reliability of these oil facts.....

Israel could be embarking on a gas boom, for the domestic and export markets. It will be interesting to see what the demand is for Liquid Petroleum Gas vehicles over coming years

Jul 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dominica next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015). It is a small country with a small population and which makes no contribution to GHG emissions, due to its significant forests acting as a "sink", so arguably this should be a very small piece. However, it is clearly a country with immense problems, and they are clearly aware of it - their INDCs are a considerable document. Thus this may be a longer commentary than is (arguably) objectively justified.

"Dominica has always been in a vulnerable position economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally given its susceptibility to natural disasters and its ecological and economic fragility. Vulnerability to climate change in Dominica, like many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), is aggravated by external pressures affecting its resilience and adaptive capacity such as terms of trade, impacts of globalisation (both positive and negative), financial crises, international conflicts, external debt, externalization of the benefits of foreign direct investment at the expense of the local population, and internal local conditions such as population growth, reliance of fossil fuel imports, incidence of poverty, inadequate social capital, unemployment, limited resource base for economic development, reduced social cohesion, and a widening gap between poor and rich, together with the interactions between them. It is widely acknowledged that climate change exacerbates impacts from natural disasters with enormous human, environmental and economic costs.

´Flood swamped villages, destroyed homes and wiped out roads. Some communities are no longer recognizable…´
´The extent of the devastation is monumental. We have in essence to rebuild the country.´ Prime Minister, Hon.
Roosevelt Skerrit, describing the situation in Dominica in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Erika which left many people dead and injured, over 500 persons homeless, and devastated the country on the morning of 27th August, 2015, resulting in US$392.3 million in damages (representing 75.88% of GDP)."

"In the global context, until around 2005Dominica´s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions was nil, due to the small size of the country's economy and population, combined with the ability of the large expanse of the country’s forested areas (comprising 63% of the total land area) to sequester greenhouse gases at levels that exceeded national GHG emissions from anthropogenic activities. Nonetheless, Dominica is a country committed nationally and internationally to addressing climate change. Due to the exceptionally high level of vulnerability to climate impacts, Dominica´s national priority is to enhance community, ecosystem and national resilience to climate change and natural
disasters, including through the implementation of viable sustainable energy and other mitigation measures, which reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, while building local resilience, capacity and self-sufficiency. In this regard, the harnessing of the country’s geothermal resources over the next decade will considerably reduce Dominica’s reliance on imported fossil fuels as the principal source for electricity, and will liberate considerable resources spent on fuel imports which can be directed to priority adaptation measures to build resilience in vulnerable communities and sectors. Continued expansion of Dominica’s geothermal resources from 2025 onwards will enable the country to export significant amounts of renewable energy to nearby countries, thereby contributing to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Despite already being "carbon neutral", Dominica is one of the few countries committing to absolute GHG emissions reductions, rather than merely against a Business as Usual scenario, which so often amounts to a real increase.

"Dominica commits to progressively reduce total gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 2014 levels (164.5 Ggs est.) at the following reduction rates:
17.9% by 2020; 39.2% by 2025; and 44.7% by 2030."

They're clearly not stupid, and using international finance, have seen an opportunity here:

"The commercial development and continued harnessing of Dominica’s geothermal resources will, from 2025 onwards, enable the country to export significant amounts of renewable energy (estimated to exceed 200 Ggs annually) to the nearby French Territories of Martinique and Guadeloupe, thereby contributing to global efforts to reduce GHG
This contribution is conditional upon receiving timely access to international climate change financing, technology development and transfer, and capacity building support for priority adaptation and mitigation measures. Dominica’s INDC will remain provisional pending confirmation of timely access to international climate change financing, technology development and transfer, and capacity building support for priority adaptation and mitigation measures detailed in this INDC. Dependent upon COP21 outcomes, Dominica reserves the right to revise the INDC."

That about sums it up, but I will set out their economic and other problems in their own words - clearly they are in desperate need of help, and they see this as one way of obtaining it:

"With GDP standing at US$517million (2014 - IMF estimates), the Dominica economy reflects many of the traditional features of a small open economy. This includes a high level of dependence on external trade as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), dependence on single sector export products (in this case agriculture) and tourism revenue, high levels of underemployment and unemployment, and dependence on foreign capital (both public and private sector) for investment into productive sectors and for infrastructural development. Over the past 10 years, economic growth in Dominica averaged approximately 3.7% per annum, dropping to 1.5% over the past 5 years. The population of the country has remained relatively unchanged over recent years (approximately 70,000), and is not expected to increase
in the next 10-15 years. Since the year 2000, contributions to GDP have increased in the agricultural, private education and hospitality industries, with declining trends in manufacturing, real estate and banking.
The vulnerability of Dominica’s agricultural sector – which together with tourism is the mainstay of the country’s economy - is manifested in the risks presented by natural disasters and climate extremes, as well as in the sectors vulnerability to climate variability and external economic shocks. The World Bank points out that Dominica’s real agricultural sector product and agriculture’s share of GDP has fallen consistently with each major natural disaster with the sector failing to recover to previous levels of relative importance. Most of this decline is attributable to the crop sector, and within that sector, to the decline in banana production. Otherwise there has been significant growth only within the small livestock sub-sector. The World Bank indicates that “the post disaster shift out of agriculture seems to be explained by a
combination of a further reduction in larger scale production (failure to invest fully in replacement), a shift of small shareholders into employment in other sectors, and also off-island migration”.
Agricultural production accounted for 12.2% of total GDP, and overall the sector is estimated to have declined by 10.6 percent in 2010 on the heels of a 1.5 percent growth rate for 2009. The performance of the crops sub-sector was severely affected by the extended drought in 2010. Agriculture’s decline has been particularly marked since Hurricane Hugo. Crop sector product in real terms in the late 1990s was 20% below the 1988 peak caused primarily by the decline of the banana industry, which has maintained this pattern during the 2000s. Agricultural access roads have been severely damaged or destroyed by Tropical Storm Erika in August 2015, which resulted in losses to the agriculture sector of US$30.83 million (est), creating additional challenge to the sector. For a country that could be self-sufficient and provide food to neighbouring countries, Dominica’s food imports constitute an increasing burden on the
economy, and threaten food security. Impacts from climate change, affecting agricultural productivity,
continue to aggravate this situation.
With the rapid decline in the major cash crop (bananas), many farmers began moving into the fishing sector, which employs approximately 2000 registered fishermen (40% full-time). There is a much greater demand for fish at the present time as a major source of protein. Dominica’s fishery resources are relatively diverse including near-shore demersal and pelagic species, as well as deep-water pelagics and various crustaceans and other marine species. The Dominica fishing industry is small-scale and of an artisan nature. All the fish caught is for local consumption. Most fish landed in Dominica is sold directly to the public at the landing sites. The damage caused by Hurricane Lenny in 1999 on the Roseau Fisheries Complex were very obvious during the following fishing season when there was a marked increase in tuna landings, however, the lack of storage facilities posed a major problem in terms of selling the catch. This
resulted in wastage and the loss of revenue to fishermen. Already fishery resources face considerable stresses from a number of land based sources of pollution. Existing climate stresses especially hurricane/tropical storm systems and warming oceans present important challenges for the health and sustainability of the ecosystems that sustain the islands fisheries. Climate change, including increasing ocean acidification and changes in sea temperatures, are affecting fisher resources and migration patterns with consequent impacts on the sustainability of Dominica’s fishery sector, livelihoods, human health and prospects for food security. Climate change impacts on Dominica’s vibrant diving and whale-watching
industry are yet to be determined.
The island has always been in a vulnerable position economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally. Economic developments, in particular, are significantly affected by both natural and man-made external factors as is increasingly evidenced by the negative impact on the local economy of changes associated with such international phenomenon as globalization and trade liberalization. The dependence of the economy on the constricting banana industry exposes its high economic vulnerability.
Attempts to diversify are slow, however recent trends indicate that the island is moving towards tourism/ecotourism, as it markets its unique environment and culture. In doing so Dominica has become more acutely aware of the need to protect the environment and of the growing threat to its vulnerable natural resources presented by climate change. The prevailing economic situation over the past twenty years has given rise to sluggish growth and little improvement in the levels of poverty. The present government was compelled to establish a programme of Economic Stabilization and Recovery in early 2001, which was aimed at, among other things maintaining fiscal stability and energizing economic growth. The stabilization programme, which imposes stringent austerity measures, is intended to reduce public sector expenditure to sustainable levels in line with required standards set by international agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB). Now in 2015, while still facing social and economic challenges, there are indications that Dominica is making steady progress on the road to recovery."

"Dominica has no petroleum resources, and energy required to sustain development in the country is imported. Annual import costs for energy continue to rise and are currently EC$116.65 million (US$43.39 million) representing 11.92% of GDP (2014 – World Bank estimates). Electricity constitutes the primary source of commercial energy for industrial and other uses in Dominica, while approximately 8000 cubic meters of woodfuel are used domestically. The main end users of electricity are domestic, commercial and institutional customers and the pattern of consumption demonstrates the low energy use of industry and other non-domestic consumption at this time. The other main source of energy use in Dominica is in the road transport sector. As in most other developing countries road transport consumes an increasing
amount of petroleum.
As with all other island states and territories in the Caribbean, Dominica is affected by the global crisis caused by its dependency on imported petroleum products with the constant fluctuations in prices. High electricity costs (the highest in the Caribbean), constitute a real obstacle for numerous sectors, with the direct and indirect consequence of curtailing growth and parallel activities linked to the country’s sustainable development. Dominica recognises that current high costs associated with importation of fossil fuel-based energy is unsustainable, a draw on the economy, diverts much needed resources from priority poverty reduction and social development programs, and reduces the availability of funds needed to address impacts from climate change and natural disasters."

Finally, what will it all cost for a carbon sink country to remain a carbon sink country? Proposed mitigation measures are numbered and costed as follows:

1. New Geothermal Generation Plants - Capital Cost Estimate: US$75,000,000.

2. Energy Efficiency (EE) Programme - Cost Estimate: US$2,300,000.

3. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) conversion program for Hotel Sector - Capital Cost Estimate: US$1,000,000.

4. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) conversion program for Commercial, Institutional and Manufacturing Facilities - Capital Cost Estimate: US$2,700,000.

5. Off-Grid Hybrid Micro-Hydro, Wind, Solar PV, DG Back-up for Ross University - Capital Cost Estimate: US$3,300,000

6. Off-Grid Hybrid Wind, Solar, Biodiesel Generator Back-up in Off-grid Mini-Grid Configuration for South-East and East Coast of Dominica (three separate projects) - Capital Cost Estimate: US$9,000,000.

7. Replace Streetlights in Portsmouth with Off-grid Light Emitting Diode (LED) Fixtures. Installation Cost Estimate: US$1,200,000

8. Transport Sector Emissions - No cost attached.

9. Reduce Methane Emissions from Landfill - Capital Cost Estimates: $4,508,921 (not clear if that is the total cost, but I will err on the side of caution and assume that it is).

10. Other Measures - Not costed.

Thus, as an absolute minimum, their costed mitigation measures total $99 million. To which must be added:

"Costs for the abovementioned priority adaptation measures that are to be implemented over the next 5 years are US$25 million."

That's only over 5 years, so up to 2030 we can assume the costs will be higher, but let's go with mitigation and adaptation costs combined of $124M.

If anything, Dominica's population is one of the few in the world which is actually declining, so the most recent figure of 71,000 (as at 2001) may be an over-estimate. It's probably fair to say that this exercise comes in at a cost of roughly $1,700 for every man, woman and child on Dominica. In terms of GHG emissions, in world-wide terms it achieves nothing, but it might help Dominica's desperate financial plight.

Jul 24, 2017 at 8:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Congo next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015). They were written in French, so in order to avoid risking errors from over-confident lengthy translation, I'll keep it brief.

Not surprisingly they make a lot out of the fact that 65% of their country is afforested.

Their conditional target is at least a 48% reduction by 2025 (55% by 2035) in GHG emissions against a Business as Usual scenario. They do helpfully provide a table setting out the BaU situation, and contrasting it with the situation that will be achieved if they meet their goals. Emissions by 2025 would increase (-v- 2015 levels) by 219% without action being taken, and by 2035 would increase by 549%. Instead they hope to see emissions "only" increase by 2025 by 65% and by 2035 by 198%.

Given anticipated population and GDP growth, their per capita emissions figures look a little more impressive but it's the actual totals which count, of course. Per capita emissions would on a Bau scenario increase from 2015 to 2035 by 131% and by 2035 by 240%, but their target instead is increases in per capita emissions of 20% by 2025 and of 56% by 2035. In any event, real increases in per capita emissions surely run counter to what the Paris Accords are supposed to achieve? Despite pointing that out, however, their per capita emissions will still be low in global terms.

If I have understood correctly, the international finance sought to "achieve" their INDCs will be 453 million euros p.a. or 5.14Bn euros by 2025. This for a population expected to reach 8.5 million by 2035. Even assuming the higher population figure that looks like 600 euros for every man woman and child in Congo by 2025, with presumably a similar spend in the decade from 2025 to 2035. These are far from the biggest sums I've seen requested, but it's still a lot of money to significantly increase both absolute emissions and also per capita emissions intensity.

Jul 24, 2017 at 8:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Azerbaijan next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015).

They start early with what looks like an impressive offer, but we need to put it in the context of the collapse of the USSR from 1990 onwards:

"By 2030 the Republic of Azerbaijan targets 35% reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990/base year as its contribution to the global climate change efforts."

Although they tell us what their emissions were in 1990 (in order to calculate the proposed 35% "reduction"), nowhere, do they tell us what current emissions are, to enable us to see what is happening in real terms to emissions from, say, 2015.

The war which followed the break-up of the USSR clearly caused massive problems for the country. What is not clear from what follows is whether the population increased or decreased following the loss of territory to Armenia:

"The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict resulted in the occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenia and the inflow of a million refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). In addition, the conflict inflicted heavy damage on the environment of Azerbaijan. 1.7 million hectares of land that currently remain under Armenian occupation are comprised of 595.6 thousand hectares of agricultural land, 247.4 thousand hectares of forest area and 10.1 thousand hectares of farmland. 247.352 hectares of forest area, including 13197.5 hectares of rare and valuable forests, 152 natural monuments and 5 geological objects located in the occupied territories have been destroyed. Large scale arsons regularly committed by the Armenian military forces in the occupied territories seriously damage environment and livelihoods in adjacent districts as well as in the entire region. The inflicted damage amounts to billions of US dollars."

Their INDCs are highly political, claiming low GHG emissions (playing the game of emissions not being counted against the country that produces and sells oil, rather against the country that uses it), vulnerability to climate change, and the need for international finance to achieve what it claims to be ambitious targets:

"As a developing country Azerbaijan is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. National greenhouse gas
emissions account for only 0.1% of global emissions, while per capita gas emissions for 2010 equal 5.4 tons of CO2 equivalent.
Despite the existing challenges, as a developing country Azerbaijan, has already provided its contribution to the
global efforts to cope with climate change and has chosen its development direction towards low emission
development that requires more financial resources. Therefore, the submitted INDC presents a highly ambitious
The increase of the population of Azerbaijan by approximately 1.1% or 100 thousand people per year projected in
the official national statistics will increase the demand for energy and other natural resources. This represents one
of the main challenges for the reduction of GHG emissions.
In addition, constraints for the implementation of the present INDC and specific risks for the country could be listed as follows:
- The remaining occupation of the 20 % of the territory of Azerbaijan and consequently problems of one million refugees and IDPs, massive plunder of natural resources and other wealth, as well as extermination of flora and fauna in the occupied territories;
- Declining prices of oil in the global markets."

They might well mention the price of oil, since they are so heavily dependent on it. Wikipedia says this:

"The petroleum industry in Azerbaijan produces about 873,260 barrels (138,837 m3) of oil per day and 29 billion cubic meters of gas per year as of 2013. Azerbaijan is one of the birthplaces of the oil industry. Its history is linked to the fortunes of petroleum."

They are certainly not going to reduce oil or gas production. Their offer in that regard is as follows:

"Oil and gas sector
- Application of new and modern environmental-friendly technologies in the oil and gas processing, production of fuel in line with EURO-5 standards in a new refinery complex by 2019 and strengthening the capacity of the staff;
- Modernization of gas pipelines, gas distribution system and other measures to decrease losses up to 1% by 2020 and ensure the volume of reduction in compliance with international standards by 2050;
- Based on adopted strategy, accumulation of gases emitted to the atmosphere during oil-gas production, prevention of gas leakages during oil-gas processing and at distribution networks."

The whole document runs to only 3 pages (compare and contrast Dominica, for example). I can't help feeling that it's smoke and mirrors, and that another oil-producing country is making a pretence of playing along with the process while really not doing so.

Jul 24, 2017 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Tanzania next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015).

They set out their stall early:

"Tanzania is already experiencing adverse impacts of climate change. Current climate variability and change resulting in extreme weather events already lead to major economic costs in Tanzania. Every annual event has economic costs in excess of 1% of GDP, and occurs frequently, reducing long-term growth and affecting millions of people and their
livelihoods. The net economic costs of addressing climate change impacts could be equivalent to a further 1 to 2% of GDP per year by 2030. Climate change impacts are affecting coastal zones, public health, energy supply and demand, infrastructure, water resources, agricultural production and availability of ecosystem goods and services. Potentially, there will be high economic costs across these sectors. Current climate vulnerability and future climate change adverse impacts are significant to curtail Tanzania from achieving key economic growth, development and poverty reduction targets for reaching middle income developing country status."

This tale of woe sets them up to ask for money - lots of it:

"An initial estimate of immediate and start-up financing needs for enhancing adaptive capacity is about USD 150 million. In addition, about USD 500 million per year is needed to address climate change adaptation and building resilience up to 2020, increasing up to USD 1 billion per year by 2030. These costs are likely to increase further depending on global mitigation efforts. Estimated costs are up to US$ 60 billion by 2030 in mitigation investments in Tanzania."

$60Bn for a country that claims to be a net carbon sink!:

"Tanzania has negligible emissions of greenhouse gases (total and per capita), whereby per capita emissions are estimated at 0.2 tCO2e1. On the other hand, the country has a total of 88 million hectares of land areas, of which 48.1 million are forested land and under different management regimes, with a current estimated total of 9.032 Trillion tones of carbon stock. The estimates are based on the present stocks from limited studies. This implies that Tanzania is a net sink."

And the mitigation offer is only against a Business as Usual scenario, not an absolute one:

"Tanzania will reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy wide between 10-20% by 2030 relative to the BAU scenario of 138 - 153 Million tones of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e)- gross emissions, depending on the baseline efficiency improvements, consistent with its sustainable development agenda. The emissions reduction is subject to review after the first Biennial Update Report (BUR)."

They do helpfully provide a graph, which shows a BaU scenario of GHG emissions increasing by around 45% by 2030, but only by around 30% if they achieve their "low ambition" and only by around 20% if they achieve their "high ambition".

They don't tell us what their population is, but it looks like the elephant in the room if Wikipedia is to be believed, rising at 2.9% p.a. Apparently it was 12.3 million in 1967, but almost 45 million by 2012, and 55.57 million today. Conservatively assuming a population of 60 million very soon, they are asking for $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the country, in return for increasing their GHG emissions by between 20 and 30% by 2030.

Another example of the Paris Accords potentially costing a great deal to fail to achieve anything meaningful (in their stated terms). No doubt Tanzania's people would benefit from the expenditure, and no doubt that is desirable. But the Paris Accords, the MSM keep telling us, are about fighting "climate change". They won't do it this way if their theories about GHG emissions causing global warming are correct.

Jul 24, 2017 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Dominica / Dominican Republic

In 1492, Christopher Columbus landed on an island that he named Hispaniola. The West of the Island is now known as Haiti, the East, is Dominican Republic. Wikipedia gives accounts of how the Island became two separate States, with European rivalries between France, Spain and Great Britain in the years before Napolean's final defeat at Waterloo, exacerbated by "local" disputes and rivalries thereafter.

The US did get involved over the next 150 years, and in the 1960s feared it might be the "next" Cuba.

We have both posted on Haiti (page 7 of this thread)
Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24 AM | golf charlie
Jul 18, 2017 at 8:05 PM | Mark Hodgson
without noticing any damage or disasters attributable to Global Warming.

The INDC submitted by Dominica must have been submitted by the Governments Finance Department. The Wikipedia entry for Dominica must have been submitted by their Tourism Department.

"The Dominican Republic is the largest economy[19] (according to the U.S. State Department and the World Bank)[27][100] in the Caribbean and Central American region. It is an upper middle-income developing country,[101] with a 2015 GDP per capita of $14,770, in PPP terms. Over the last two decades, the Dominican Republic have been standing out as one of the fastest-growing economies in the Americas – with an average real GDP growth rate of 5.4% between 1992 and 2014.[100] GDP growth in 2014 and 2015 reached 7.3 and 7.0%, respectively, the highest in the Western Hemisphere.[21] In the first half of 2016 the Dominican economy grew 7.4%.[22] As of 2015, the average wage in nominal terms is 392 USD per month ($17,829 DOP)"

"During the last three decades, the Dominican economy, formerly dependent on the export of agricultural commodities (mainly sugar, cocoa and coffee), has transitioned to a diversified mix of services, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and trade. The service sector accounts for almost 60% of GDP; manufacturing, for 22%; tourism, telecommunications and finance are the main components of the service sector; however, none of them accounts for more than 10% of the whole"

So a reasonably diverse economy, but, as an Island Nation, vulnerable to lack of reliable power generation.

Wikipedia does note problems

"Crime in the Dominican Republic"

"In 2012 the Dominican Republic had a murder rate of 22.1 per 100,000 population.[178] There was a total of 2,268 murders in the Dominican Republic in 2012."

"The Dominican Republic has become a trans-shipment point for Colombian drugs destined to Europe as well as the United States and Canada.[5][179] Money-laundering via the Dominican Republic is favored by Colombian drug cartels for the ease of illicit financial transactions.[5] In 2004 it was estimated that 8% of all cocaine smuggled into the United States had come through the Dominican Republic.[180] The Dominican Republic responded with increased efforts to seize drug shipments, arrest and extradite those involved, and combat money-laundering."

But from a separate Wikipedia entry, this generosity

"Windsor Park is a multi-purpose stadium in Roseau, Dominica. It serves as the national stadium and is used mostly for cricket matches. Other uses have included the World Creole Music Festival, the Finals of the Calypso Competition and the Miss Dominica pageant."

"New work on the stadium started on 23 March 2005, on the first anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the People's Republic of China and Dominica. The stadium is one of the 'Four Pillar Projects' promised by the People's Republic of China to Dominica as a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) during the establishment of ties between Dominica and China. The stadium is viewed as a gift at a cost of EC$33 million, (US$17 million, €12 million), from the government of the People's Republic of China to the government and people of the Commonwealth of Dominica."

I can't help but wonder if the People's Republic of China could donate some of their surplus solar panels, to demonstrate whether an Island Nation can run on sunshine.

Jul 25, 2017 at 1:16 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Swaziland next (INDCs submitted on 29th May 2015).

This is one of the oddest I have so far seen. It starts with a qualification posted on the UN website:

"The submission is made on behalf of the government of Swaziland by the Climate Change Focal Point, without prejudice to the pending Cabinet consideration of the INDCs for which the outcome of Cabinet consideration may be different to the one submitted. In the case that Cabinet adopt the INDCs that is different in content and context to that submitted, their will prevail."

The introduction starts with the usual waffle:

"The Kingdom of Swaziland is a landlocked, culturally--rich country situated in Southern Africa, and home to 1.25 million Swazi people. As a developing, lower-middle income country, Swaziland’s ultimate vision is to improve its world standing in terms of measureable indices of human development. Underlying this vision is a focus on sustainable economic development, social justice, political stability, poverty eradication, employment creation, gender equity, social integration and environmental protection.

"Swaziland recognises that climate change can severely impact on the achievement of the ultimate vision for the country. As such, climate change is considered a priority development concern, and the country is committed to taking urgent and long-term actions to reduce the vulnerability of its people and risks to national Since ratifying the Convention in 1996, Swaziland has developed a series of notable climate actions which include (amongst others) the establishment of a multi-stakeholder National Climate Change Steering Committee in 2011. This Committee spearheaded the development of Swaziland’s 2014 National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan and 2015 National Climate Change Policy. The goal of this Policy is to support the development of a sustainable, climate resilient and inclusive low-carbon green growth economy in line with vision 2022 outlined in the national development strategy."

Their contribution to GHG emissions is negligible:

"Swaziland has contributed little to greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. Estimates put Swaziland’s 2010 emission inventory at 0.8 MtCO2e (including the Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector), meaning that Swaziland’s emissions represent less than 0.002% of global emissions."

"Adaptation action within the country is crucial, and this forms the basis of Swaziland’s climate change response and INDC."

They therefore are doing nothing really, yet, with regard to mitigation:

"Swaziland has experienced various challenges in the compilation of its national GHG inventories. Challenges include data collection and archiving, quality assurance and control, and uncertainties in the estimation of emissions from all IPCC7 sectors. Due to these uncertainties, there is no clear departure point for Swaziland’s emission trajectory and therefore Swaziland’s mitigation contribution is framed on an action-based approach that is strongly dependant on financial and technical support as well as capacity building."

Accordingly their actions are no more than this:

"Swaziland’s contribution is to develop a robust national GHG inventory, a credible baseline and emissions trajectory, and a comprehensive measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system.
This will provide the framework on which to develop a mitigation goal and associated action plan by 2020."

And "Swaziland’s contribution is to double the share of renewable energy in the national energy mix by 2030, relative to 2010 levels."

They also propose to use ethanol in their buses, as transport accounted for 9% of their GHG emissions in 2010. These emissions are otherwise expected to increase "exponentially" as the vehicle purchase growth rate in the country is running at 7% p.a.

Finally they propose to phase out the use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 gases.

"The implementation of Swaziland’s INDC is conditional upon appropriate support in the form of finance, technical assistance and capacity building. Depending on the level of support received, Swaziland will update its INDC accordingly.
These mitigation actions have clear GHG reduction potential and could be converted to carbon credits. Swaziland intends to sell emission reductions units through international and regional carbon markets and/or carbon pricing mechanisms that may be established under the new agreement."

They don't really tell us what this will achieve, nor what it will cost, they would like the international community to send money.

Jul 25, 2017 at 8:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Over on Unthreaded Entropic Man tells us that positive climate feedbacks are kicking in resulting in release of methane from peri-polar regions and decreasing (yes you read it right) CO2 uptake by vegetation. So, why should anyone worry what Swaziland or Papua New Guinea are doing to reduce their emissions (or are they?). Nothing the Paris Accords can do will have any effect. Mark, your efforts are for naught. Relent and prepare for thermagedon!

Jul 25, 2017 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

"Swaziland next (INDCs submitted on 29th May 2015).

This is one of the oddest I have so far seen. It starts with a qualification posted on the UN website:

"The submission is made on behalf of the government of Swaziland by the Climate Change Focal Point, without prejudice to the pending Cabinet consideration of the INDCs for which the outcome of Cabinet consideration may be different to the one submitted. In the case that Cabinet adopt the INDCs that is different in content and context to that submitted, their will prevail."Jul 25, 2017 at 8:13 AM | Mark Hodgson"
"The country is an absolute monarchy, ruled by Ngwenyama ("King") Mswati III since 1986.[8][9] He is head of state and appoints the country's prime ministers and a number of representatives of both chambers (Senate and House of Assembly) in the country's parliament. Elections are held every five years to determine the House of Assembly and the Senate majority. The current constitution was adopted in 2005."

I am not sure that the King has offered full support to those preparing INDCs.

Jul 25, 2017 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


I'm not contributing at the moment, though I am keeping an eye on unthreaded, as it's quite amusing just now.

gc, I've actually been to Swaziland and enjoyed my visit, though I found it a little strange.

Jul 25, 2017 at 7:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Zambia next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015).

Before looking at the INDCs, it's worth noting that Zambia has a rapidly rising population, and that population growth, as so often, could be the elephant in the room. Fergus Walsh posted an article about it on the BBC website on 24th October 2011:

In it he says (inter alia) "I've been to Zambia because it has one of the world's fastest growing populations. I have been to many maternity wards around the world but never one as busy at the United Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka."

And later in the article: "The rising workload of UTH's maternity unit is a tangible sign of Zambia's growing population. It is 13 million now [i.e. in 2011] and projected to triple by 2050 according to the UN Population Division. Even its most cautious projection has the population at 100 million by 2100, with its medium (or best estimate) being 140 million."

It appears from further online searches that Zambia's population is now approaching 17.3M. If so, it has increased by around 1/3 in just 6 years.

Having noted what I think is an important context, we can now look at the INDCs. Early on they make it clear they are looking for a lot of money:

"Zambia’s INDC includes both mitigation and adaptation components based on her national circumstances and is in line with decisions 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20. The successful implementation of Zambia’s INDC will result in an estimated total emission reduction of 38,000GgCO2eq which translates to 47% (internationally supported efforts) against 2010 as a base year. This emission reduction is conditional and subject to the availability of international support in form of finance, technology and capacity building.
The total budget for implementing both components is estimated at US$ 50 billion by the year 2030, out of this USD 35 billion is expected to come from external sources while $15 billion will be mobilized from domestic sources."

Assuming a current population of 17.3 million, that looks like $2,890 for every man, woman and child currently in the country, of which over $2,000 each is requested from the international community.

They seek to justify this by claiming costs (unsubstantiated - or at least unexplained - in the INDCs) resulting from supposed climate change issues, as follows: "The aggregated estimated total GDP loss by sector was in the range of USD 4,330-5,440 million with the following sector GDP losses: Agriculture (2,200 – 3,130), Energy related (270 – 450), Health (460), and Natural Resources (1,400)."

They divide their mitigation strategy into 3 parts:

Sustainable Forest Management;

Sustainable Agriculture; and

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency.

They then show a table suggesting that Business as Usual will see emissions increase by around 30-35% between 2010 and 2030, but that over the same time frame they will remain broadly stable based on their own efforts. However, with international finance, then it is claimed that the conditional offering will see GHG emissions fall (in absolute terms from 2010 levels) by around 30% by 2030.

Their claim uses bigger numbers, but so far as I can see that's because they're against the BaU scenario, rather than against 2010 emissions levels, despite their references to 2010. Maybe I'm being thick, because I don't read their graphs the way they seem to, but I suspect some smoke and mirrors in the numbers:

"It is expected from this scenario that by the end of 2030, estimated 38,000 Gg CO2eq could be mitigated, compared to 20,000 Gg CO2eq under the domestic efforts with limited international support. This translates into a reduction potential of 25% and 47% against 2010 as the base year for the domestic efforts with limited international support and domestic efforts with substantial international support respectively."

Whatever the precise percentage levels, it would indeed be hugely impressive to reduce GHG emissions in absolute terms, especially in the context of a rapidly rising population "and desire to become a high middle income and prosperous Nation by 2030."

I would like to be enthusiastic about this and say that the international funds, if forthcoming, will actually reduce GHG emissions significantly, but there are two problems to my mind:

1. The adaptation section of the INDCs is much bigger than the mitigation section, and I just don't see the mitigation measures achieving their stated aims, given the context (rapidly rising population and "desire to become a high middle income and prosperous Nation by 2030." Nowhere in their INDCs do they mention their projected population growth and its likely impact on GHG emissions.

2. According to their INDCs "Zambia is low contributor to the global greenhouse gas emission." So there's not a lot to reduce in the first place!

Jul 25, 2017 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Namibia next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015).

As with Zambia, they put their financial requirements up front early:

"Implementation of this INDC will represent a major challenge to the government of Namibia. Multiple shortcomings and constraints will have to be overcome while fulfilling the needs for systemic, Institutional and human capacity building, access and transfer of the latest environment friendly and clean production technologies, mitigation techniques and sufficient financing in a timely manner for smooth and successful implementation of the INDC. It is thus of vital importance that the Green Climate Fund be capitalised rapidly in order to provide the much needed funds to developing countries to enable them to meet their intended targeted contribution. The cost of implementation of the INDC components of Namibia will require about US$ 33 billion at 2015 prices."

Namibia does not have anything like the same population issues as Zambia, but its population is also growing rapidly (admittedly from a small base - c 0.5M some 60 years ago, maybe approaching 2.5M today. But that small population makes all the more astounding the amount of money they seek from the international community allegedly for tackling climate change. $33Bn divided between 2.5M people amounts to $13,200 for every man, woman and child in the country.

That's a lot of money when one considers what their INDCs tell us about their tiny contribution to global GHG emissions:

"Percentage contribution in Global emissions – 0.059% in 2010."

And for a country asking for $33Bn, one might think the international community is entitled to a little more than this rather blithe statement:

"Though clear mitigation and adaptation plans have not been fully developed up to now, the endeavour is real since these strategies have been mainstreamed in the overall national policy, strategies. Namibia is presently developing its first Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) and is working on its National Adaptation Plan (NAP) to better guide the country on its way to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The preparation of the INDC report focused mainly on existing policies, strategies and action plans developed and currently being implemented. In the preparation of this report, we prioritised and favoured options from the very broad possibilities that exist for both mitigation and adaptation, as well as the most attractive ones, on the basis of their potential for successful adoption at national level. Some of these actions will yield positive results in both mitigation and adaptation areas while benefiting other sectors of the economy at large."

In fairness, they do go into rather more detail, and also aim to reduce GHG emissions by 89% by 2030 against a Business as Usual scenario. This sounds extremely impressive, except that Business as Usual sees them go from being " a net sink over period 2000 to 2010 but the capacity decreased from 18 278 to 1339 Gg CO2-eq", then rising to 22 647 Gg CO2-eq by 2030.

Admittedly we are talking small volumes, but their Business as Usual scenario sees things going rapidly in the wrong direction, and although that situation will be greatly ameliorated if their plans are met, they are still asking for $33Bn to help them increase their GHG emissions in real terms.

Jul 25, 2017 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Uruguay next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015) and I am grateful to them for submitting in addition an English translation.

It presents an interesting picture, rather different from those of other countries looked at so far:

"For the past 10 years Uruguay has grown at an average annual rate of 5.4%. During this period, energy demands from the industrial sector increased threefold and food production was three and a half times greater. This growth brought along a significant decline in poverty rates, from 39.9% to 9.7%, while extreme poverty was virtually eradicated, dropping from 4.7% to 0.3%, reaching a Gini Index of 0.38.
Uruguay's production is heavily dependent on food production, and this sector accounts for 70% of national exports. Uruguay's total agricultural sector currently produces food for 28 million people, while the country has a population of 3.3 million.
Uruguay's food production is expected to continue growing in the future, since the country has particularly fertile soils, global demand is on the increase and the country is to contribute to global food security. This means that Uruguay's GHG inventory is, and will continue to be, heavily influenced by the emissions from the agriculture sector: following the GWP100 metric, this sector accounts for 76% of current emissions, and beef production accounts for three quarters of it."

Because of this, they present their INDCs by reference to each gas, rather than in total. Starting with CO2:

"Thanks to the removal increase by LULUCF and to low emissions by the energy sector in 2030 Uruguay will be a net CO2 remover."

And in Gg:

"CH4 Emissions 840
N2O Emissions 39"

They conclude:

"As can be observed, Uruguay expects to be a net CO2 sink by 2030. In addition, based on these estimates, we expect to maintain relatively stable levels of non-CO2 gases emissions by 2030 compared to current values, despite an expected growth in the economy for the period of 60%."

So far as I can see, no smoke and mirrors there, and it looks pretty impressive. The only slight downside is that they are looking for international finance to help them, but they don't say how much they want: " order to be able to implement the additional set of mitigation actions that have been identified, Uruguay needs further means of implementation to be provided by external sources."

Jul 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Kyrgyzstan next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015). Again I am grateful that they provided an English translation.

The starting point is set out early:

"The Kyrgyz Republic's greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are relatively low. In 2010, the contribution of the country to the total global GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion was 0.023%, while the population was 0.079% of the world's total population, i.e. per capita GHG emission in the Kyrgyz Republic is less than one-third of the world average. However, the planned economic development will lead to a sharp increase in greenhouse gases emissions, which
determines the need for resolute actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Their mitigation offer is against a Business as Usual scenario, and they use 2010 as the base year, so at least they are not using the crafty strategy adopted by so many former SSRs of offering reductions against 1990 figures (their economies having collapsed since 1990 and never recovered to 1990 levels).

BaU is not explicitly set out, but they offer 3 graphs (rather ambitiously from 2010 to 2100), based on 3 alternative scenarios:

" Scenario 1: Low population growth - high economic growth;
 Scenario 2: Average population growth - average economic growth;
 Scenario 3: High population growth - low economic growth.
The following estimates of population for 2050 (in thousands):
Scenario 1 - 6872; Scenario 2 - 7975; Scenario 3 - 9170."

Scenario one sees emissions roughly trebling by 2100 on a BaU basis, but less than doubling on a conditional basis, and somewhere in between on a conditional basis; scenario 2 sees emissions roughly doubling by 2100 on a BaU basis, maybe increasing by roughly 20% on a conditional basis, and holding roughly steady on an unconditional basis; scenario 3 sees emissions roughly increasing by 2/3 by 2100 on a BaU basis, maybe increasing by 20% or less on a conditional basis, and possibly falling slightly on an unconditional basis.

Obviously the latter scenario would be impressive - especially over a time scale up to 2100 - the only problem being that we don't know which - if any - of the scenarios will come to pass. The first may be the most likely, given this:

"To meet its development needs the economy is expected to grow and so will do the GHG emissions. The increase in GHG emissions is expected to be much faster than in the developed countries."

Costs of adaptation and mitigation are, rather strangely, calculated using $US at 2005 values (and which therefore understate the cost at 2017 $ values).

Adaptation costs on that basis are:

"Domestic costs 213.40
International support 1592.10
Total 1937.50"

I.e. just under $1.6Bn of foreign support is requested. Mitigation costs are set out against the 3 scenarios, with foreign support coming in at $1.227BN; $1.062Bn; and $1.181Bn respectively.

Assuming the higher figure, and rounding up to reflect 2017 values rather than 2005 values, it looks like a request for $3-4Bn. Not a lot in the scheme of things, especially for a country with a population of around 6 million. It sounds like less than $500 per person. The question is what will it achieve, especially given that their GHG emissions are extremely small on a global scale? Still, some credit for trying and for not asking for too much money.

Jul 25, 2017 at 8:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Congo, from Wikipedia:

"The Democratic Republic of the Congo has been known in the past as, in chronological order, the Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville), the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Zaire, before returning to its current name the Democratic Republic of the Congo."

"From 1965 to 27 October 1971 the country was officially renamed from its former name at independence, "Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville)", to the "Democratic Republic of the Congo". It was changed to the "Republic of Zaire" in 1971 by President Mobutu Sese Seko.[19] In 1992 the Sovereign National Conference voted to change the name of the country to the "Democratic Republic of the Congo", but the change was not put into practice.[20] The country's name was restored by President Laurent-Désiré Kabila following the fall of Mobutu in 1997."

Wikipedia also details the tribal conflicts that have torn Congo and adjacent Countries without respecting boundaries imposed by Europeans.

Global Warming has not damaged the fertility of Congo. Nor has it damaged the geology:
"The Rift valley has exposed an enormous amount of mineral wealth throughout the south and east of the Congo, making it accessible to mining. Cobalt, copper, cadmium, industrial and gem-quality diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, uranium, radium, bauxite, iron ore, and coal are all found in plentiful supply, especially in the Congo's southeastern Katanga region."

Congo is landlocked in Central Africa. Mining and exporting minerals requires co-operation with neighbouring Countries. This is not simple, with the complex rivalries in Central Africa.

Jul 25, 2017 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Azerbaijan. The oil fields around Baku (Capital of Azerbaijan) were powering Russia and making Europeans envious before WW1 started. Before WW1 ended, Russia had a revolution and the Soviets appreciated the value of oil.

Germany has never had oil. Hitler needed vast quantities, hence the invasion of the Soviet Union and the push for the oilfields - see Operation Edelweiss.

With the collapse of the USSR, and independence for Azerbaijan, jealousy of the power supplies and wealth continues. Unfortunately, the majority of residents have never benefitted, whether under capitalist or communist rule.

Jul 25, 2017 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Tanzania. All the following extracts from Wikipedia:

"The Tanzanian economy is heavily based on agriculture, which accounts for 24.5% of gross domestic product.  The agricultural sector grew 4.3% in 2012, less than half of the Millennium Development Goal target of 10.8%. 16.4% of the land is arable,  with 2.4% of the land planted with permanent crops."

"According to the 2002 National Irrigation Master Plan, 29.4 million hectares in Tanzania are suitable for irrigation farming; however, only 310,745 hectares were actually being irrigated in June 2011"

"Only 15% of Tanzanians had access to electric power in 2011. The electrical supply varies, particularly when droughts disrupt hydropower electric generation; rolling blackouts are implemented as necessary. The unreliability of the electrical supply has hindered the development of Tanzanian industry."

"In 2013, 49.7% of Tanzania's electricity generation came from natural gas, 28.9% from hydroelectric sources, 20.4% from thermal sources, and 1.0% from outside the country."

"The government is building a 532 kilometres (331 mi) gas pipeline from Mnazi Bay to Dar es Salaam, with a scheduled completion in 2015. This pipeline is expected to allow the country to double its electricity generation capacity to 3,000 megawatts by 2016. The government's goal is to increase capacity to at least 10,000 megawatts by 2025."

"According to PFC Energy, 25 to 30 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources have been discovered in Tanzania since 2010, bringing the total reserves to over 43 trillion cubic feet by the end of 2013. The value of natural gas actually produced in 2013 was US $52.2 million, a 42.7% increase over 2012."

It seems that Tanzania has bet its future on fossil fueled electricity.

Jul 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Zambia achieved independence, and was beset with conflict. But it had copper, lots of it.
"The Copperbelt is a natural region in Central Africawhich sits on the border region between northernZambia and the southern Democratic Republic of Congo. It is known for copper mining."

Courtesy of the Kariba Dam, Zambia had cheap electricity too.

In about 1974, the World Copper Market changed, with other countries getting involved in supply, as world demand faltered. Zambia lost out.

From 2006
"Oil and gas discovered in Zambia. The discoveries were made in western Zambia, near the border with Angola, already a major oil exporter."

But according to:

"Zambia is the 87th largest export economy in the world and the 75th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index (ECI). In 2015, Zambia exported $9.3B and imported $8.2B, resulting in a positive trade balance of $1.06B. In 2015 the GDP of Zambia was $21.2B and its GDP per capita was $3.84k."

"The top exports of Zambia are Refined Copper ($5.26B), Raw Copper ($1.69B), Raw Tobacco($244M), Corn ($215M) and Cobalt ($146M), using the 1992 revision of the HS (Harmonized System) classification. Its top imports are Refined Petroleum ($1.01B), Copper Ore ($363M),Crude Petroleum ($352M), Cobalt Oxides and Hydroxides ($281M) and Cobalt Ore ($232M)." Zambia still imports fuel.

When it comes to marketing commodities are never too far way.

Jul 26, 2017 at 1:09 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie