Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The Paris Accords and INDCs

Thanks gc - you're in danger of making more effort on this thread than I am!

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

It's short and rather strange, to my mind. This seems to be the crucial section:

" Calculation basis
a. The ‘GHG limitation quantitative indicator’ is calculated based on the per capita emissions of the global population,
b. For global population consider the fixed estimate as of 1990, equal to 5.3 billion people (3.35 million was the Republic of Armenia’s population in 1990),
c. The per capita emissions limiting volume on the global level equals to 189 tons/per capita (1.000 Gt/5.3 billion people),
d. To set the total aggregate quantitative contribution of the Republic of Armenia under INDC equal to 633 million tons carbon dioxide equivalent(189 tons per capita x 3.35 million people) for the period of 2015-2050 or an annual average of
5.4 tons per capita. In 2010, Armenia’s GHG emissions comprised 2.14 tons per capita.
The Republic of Armenia strives to achieve ecosystem neutral GHG emissions in 2050 (2.07 tons/per capita annual) with the support of adequate (necessary and sufficient) international financial, technological and capacity building assistance.
In case of non-exceeding its total emissions quota (633 million tons) set for the period of 2015-2050 Armenia can credit non-utilized reduction to ‘carbon market’, or transfer it to the balance of emissions limitation envisaged for the period of 2050-2100."

Three things strike me about this:

1. There is no commitment to anything ("Armenia strives to achieve...").

2. They are playing the game so loved of former SSRs of using 1990 as their "year zero".

3. Although it isn't entirely clear, given the confusing way it is set out, they seem to be giving themselves scope to increase their emissions by 150%.

They don't spell out, either, how much money they want but it is clear they would like international money as part of this process:

"Develop an appropriate legislative and institutional framework for adequate financial assistance. For this purpose a targeted financial mechanism consisting of two components should be created to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation projects:
1) The first – internal (domestic) climate revolving civil fund, to be replenished on permanent base by allocations from environmental fees, ecosystem service fees, including "carbon taxing".
2) The second –external (international) financial mechanisms with resource provision following the principle of additionality, such as the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund, the Global Environmental Facility, bilateral and multilateral funds, and other sources.
The emerging financial mechanism will:
a. Create realistic and operational grounds for establishment and development of the reliable public- private partnership (PPP),
b. Ensure the right of future generations to ‘use climate resources’."

They seem to have signed up the use of language but not to the alleged aims.

Jul 26, 2017 at 9:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mali next (INDCs submitted on 29th September 2015). Please bear with me, as this one was submitted in French only, with no English translation. I'll keep it relatively brief, to try to avoid over-ambition in translation, with consequent likelihood of mistakes on my part.

They come out with the costs of their INDCs early on. Total (I think) mitigation costs of $34.68 Bn, and adaptation costs of $1.062 Bn for the period 2015-2020 (later the total attenuation cost is stated to be $5.202 Bn). So the total cost is pushing up towards $40 Bn.

Although it isn't easy to ascertain the precise population of Mali (which seems to have more than trebled in the last 50 years), current estimates reported on the internet seem to vary between 16M and 18M (though their INDCs suggest a population of 14.5 million). If we assume a little over 17 million people, then they are asking in their INDCs for $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. If we assume their stated population of 14.5 million, and total costs of $40 Bn, then they are asking for nearer $3,000 per capita.

One wonders why the rest of the world should pay so much to assist in achieving the targets set out in their INDCs, given that they tell us that Africa contributes only 3% of world GHG emissions, and Mali itself contributes only 0.06%. Anything Mali achieves, in terms of GHGs (at not inconsiderable cost) will be negligible to say the least. More than that, assuming I have translated correctly, GHG sequestration by their forests appears to exceed their emissions, making Mali a "carbon sink" (although the net size of that "sink" seems to have reduced by roughly 40% between 2007 and 2014, thanks to an almost 20% increase in emissions during the same period).

They helpfully provide a graph showing that on a Business as Usual scenario emissions from the energy sector are predicted to come close to trebling between 2015 and 2030. Their mitigation offer would see them instead less than double (or as they prefer to put it, reduce by 31.6% against a BaU scenario).

Emissions from their agriculture sector would increase by a little under 50% on a BaU scenario, but with the offered mitigation, would remain roughly steady between 2015 and 2030.

Emissions sequestration by forestry would apparently reduce by around 50% on a BaU basis, but with mitigation measures in place would only reduce by around 30% instead (or as they prefer to put it, sequestration would be 21% greater than on a BaU basis).

It seems to me that Mali is asking for a lot of money to achieve next to nothing in global GHG terms.

Jul 26, 2017 at 10:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Vanuatu next (INDCs submitted on 29th May 2015). ALthough in English, I think I can deal with this one quickly too, as their GHG emissions are tiny.

"Vanuatu’s past emissions have been miniscule and have only become locally significant in the past decade or two. In general development issues dominate rather than climate change mitigation.Vanuatu is a small developing nation with absolute levels of CO2 eq emissions very small at under 0.0016% of world emissions. The country is also one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and has much to lose should the worst predictions from increased temperature levels eventuate. As such the country will do its best to mitigate but would require financial, technical and capacity building support to do so."

Therefore they would like some money, please:

"The Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) report for Vanuatu states that Vanuatu has been receiving a lower share of adaptation funding than most other Pacific island countries. To adequately adapt to the impacts of climate change, starting now, the annual cost is estimated to be 1.5% of a country's GDP. For Vanuatu, this equates to an investment of US$9.5 million per year. This is substantially higher than the amount of development funding currently being spent on projects that have Adaptation as their principal objective."

Their offer, which they term misleadingly "GHG reductions" is:

"100% below BAU emissions for electricity sub-sector and 30% for energy sector as a whole." I say misleadingly, because the reality is set out in a little more detail in this paragraph:

"The main mitigation contribution is to achieve the outcomes and targets under the National Energy Road Map (NERM) and Second National Communication (SNC) extended to 2030. The mitigation contribution for the Vanuatu INDC submission is a sector specific target of transitioning to close to 100% renewable energy in the electricity sector by 2030. This target would replace nearly all fossil fuel requirements for electricity generation in the country and be consistent with the National Energy Road Map (NERM) target of 65% renewable energy by 2020. This contribution would reduce emissions in the energy sector by 72Gg by 2030. Emissions in this sector were around 130 Gg in 2010 but are expected to rise to 240 Gg by 2030 (3% per annum)."

240 - 72 = 168, which is close to 30% more than 130.

Their plans to achieve this, with associated costs, are as follows:

"Mainly electricity generation sub-sector but with ancillary mitigation possible in forestry, agriculture, transport and energy efficiency sector wide.
The key planned mitigation interventions include:
 Doubling of the wind installed capacity to 5.5 MW by 2025
 Installing 10 MW grid connected solar PV by 2025
 Commissioning the proposed first stage 4 MW Geothermal plant by 2025
 Adding 10 MW grid connected solar PV by 2030
 Commissioning the second stage 4 MW Geothermal plant by 2030
 Substituting and/or replacement of fossil fuels with coconut oil based electricity generation
The proposed interventions would need substantial external funding of around US$180 million to proceed at the time frame needed. In addition, substantial technology transfer would be required including institutional support and training.
Additional planned mitigation interventions include:
 National Energy Road Map (US$ 210.5 million indicative - with some overlap)
 Rural Electrification Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) (US$ 5 million indicative)
 Off grid renewable energy projects under Scaling Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries Program (US $34.2 million)
 Energy efficiency measures to be pursued across the board to enable 15% savings in the energy sector.
 Forestry sector measures to reduce deforestation and promote good land care to accepted mitigation practices
according to REDD+
 Planned cooperation with New Zealand and other nations interested in mitigating methane (CH4) and associated
emissions for ruminant and pasture management."

I think that adds up to $429.7 million. They don't tell us their population size, but a quick internet search suggests it's of the order of 270,000. So that works out at roughly $1,600 for every man, woman and child in the country. For a country that contributes under 0.0016% of world emissions, and is offering to increase them by almost 30%.

Jul 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark you repeatedly (and probably correctly) dismiss the emission contributions of small and impoverished countries as being unimportant. Whereas this is probably true individually, they are beginning to add up. I started to add up those contributions you have already discussed and already combined they exceed the 2% the UK allegedly contributes.

Jul 26, 2017 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Namibia did not become Independent until 1990 (from South Africa) and maintains strong links in trade, commerce, education etc.

Average annual rainfall is low ( 3-350mm) but reasonably predictable, and boreholes have been drilled into the abundant aquifers.

From Wikipedia the following:

Providing 25% of Namibia's revenue, mining is the single most important contributor to the economy.Namibia is the fourth largest exporter of non-fuel minerals in Africa and the world's fourth largest producer of uranium. There has been significant investment in uranium mining and Namibia is set to become the largest exporter of uranium by 2015. Rich alluvial diamond deposits make

Namibia a primary source for gem-quality diamonds.

Domestic supply voltage is 220V AC. Electricity is generated mainly by thermal and hydroelectric power plants. Non-conventional methods of electricity generation also play some role.

★★Encouraged by the rich uranium deposits the Namibian government plans to erect its first nuclear power station by 2018, also uranium enrichment is envisaged to happen locally.★★

This could change things a bit

Jul 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Supertroll and gc, thanks as always.

Alan, I take your point about dozens of trivial emissions adding up to larger numbers. I can't argue with that. My point is simply that in each case they are asking for large (sometimes huge) sums of money to support their mitigation (and adaptation) efforts. And often their mitigation efforts see them not reducing their emissions in absolute terms, only (if at all) reducing them against a Business as Usual scenario. There are two points there - Business as Usual always seems to involve significant increases in emissions, such that a reduction against BaU is usually (but not always) an increase (sometimes a significant increase) in absolute emissions. Secondly, how do we know their Business as Usual assumptions are correct? They are only projections. If they are as accurate as some of the climate models, they're pretty meaningless anyway.

Where is all the money to come from? Is it being well spent? What will it achieve?

My provisional conclusions are:

1. Many of these undeveloped countries are, perfectly understandably, seeking to use the Paris Accords to lever large sums of money from the international community to improve the lot of their people. In many cases, they seek to develop renewable energy to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (some of the island countries are almost entirely dependent on imports of fossil fuels). I suspect this is about saving money and increasing energy independence than it is about "saving the planet". In almost every case they seek to improve GDP alongside increasing populations. Inevitably, whatever they do, GHG emissions are going to increase, and the idea that the Paris Accords can do anything about this is a sham.

2. I suspect the UN knows this all too well. I have for a long time, as a vague old lefty, resisted the Delingpole idea of Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside - as right-wing hysteria and conspiracy theorising. However, I now suspect that the UN is actively using "green" issues to force the developed world to make significant financial contributions to the well-being of the undeveloped world. Now in my eyes that is in principle a good thing. But as it's playing out, I have a number of objections:

a) If my surmise is correct, then the UN is not being honest about this. In a political world where "transparency" is a buzz word, the UN strategy, if such it is, is not at all transparent.

b) The UK, unlike most nations, already donates 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid. As a country with a huge debt overhang and continuing significant deficits, we're already doing our bit. I don't understand why politicians of almost every stripe in the UK are so keen to sign up to giving away more money we can ill-afford.

c) Some countries, especially rich middle east oil-producers, are sticking up 2 fingers at the process, while pretending to play along with it. Some of the poor countries are also not doing anything real to reduce GHG emissions. But they want our money, and we can't afford it any more. Ironically, if we weren't bankrupting the UK with expensive and unreliable energy sources and exporting our industry to countries with lower environmental standards, we might have more money to invest abroad to help poorer countries actually to reduce GHG emissions, rather than just pretend to do so.

My wish is that the MSM would carry out an analysis of the Paris Accords and the INDCs and actually draw some meaningful conclusions. In my own inadequate way I am trying to draw attention to the cost and futility of the Paris Accords. A major newspaper or broadcaster like the BBC could do so much better than I can, with all their resources and websites etc. But they won't because they're "true believers".

I am not able to argue with the science behind climate change, as I'm not a scientist. In principle I accept it. I suppose I'm a lukewarmer, though I do sometimes have fun with issues like homogenisation and urban heat island effect and questioning whether the statistics behind the science can actually be trusted or justify the conclusions with which alarmists seek to scare us.

My main issue, however, and it's a repeated theme of mine, is why "true believers" can't believe the science without supporting wholeheartedly the barking mad policy prescriptions that have been laid down by the UN, EU and politicians all over the world. It's my view that people who are truly worried about anthropogenic climate change should be angry about the Paris Accords, rather than supporting them unthinkingly. I bet 99.9% of people who claim to support them haven't read them or the INDCs produced under them. Why not? Why are people now so ready to accept what they're told without thinking about it for themselves?

I must be getting old...

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark. Thank you for your thoughts, many of which mirror my own. I happen to think that the issue you raise in your penultimate paragraph (that beginning "The main issue...") is the crux of the matter. I for one would like to see you develop this.

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Jul 26, 2017 at 11:06 AM | Supertroll

Isn't that the way the INDCs have been set up by the UN/IPCC/Green Blob etc?

Unfortunately, by deliberately obstructing investment in fossil fuels, the UN/IPCC/Green Blob are ensuring that under developed countries will stay that way, and developed countries suffer "demand management" (aka rationing) of power.

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Peru next (INDCs submitted on 28th September 2015). I am grateful that they have submitted an English translation alongside their original submission,which is in Spanish.

They tell us that "...the[ir] 2010 national GHG emissions accounted for only 0.3% of global emissions, with per capita emissions significantly lower than the average of Latin America and the world...".

0.3% is less insignificant than many countries I have looked at, so perhaps this is a country that should try to do something meaningful. It will be difficult, given that "...76% of the population lives in urban areas, with an annual growth rate of 2.1%, whereas rural areas have grown at a rate of 0.01% per annum...". A quick internet search suggests that Peru's population now exceeds 30 million, having roughly trebled in the last 60 years. With more than 3/4 of the population showing a growth rate of 2.1% p.a. it strikes me that this is a country with real issues in reducing GHG emissions while seeking to improve the lot of its many poor people.

If you believe the propaganda they repeat, then their problems are huge:

"Studies that quantify the impact of climate change on national economic growth show that in 2030, under a climate change scenario, real GDP would be lower than the GDP without climate change by 5.7% to 6.8%. In 2050, the gap would be between 20.2% and 23.4%.This is equivalent to an average annual loss between 7.3% and 8.6% of the potential GDP up to 2050."

Their mitigation proposals are as follows:

"The Peruvian iNDC envisages a reduction of emissions equivalent to 30% in relation to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of the projected Business as Usual scenario (BaU) in 2030.
The Peruvian State considers that a 20% reduction will be implemented through domestic investment and expenses, from public and private resources (non-conditional proposal), and the remaining 10% is subject to the availability of international financing and the existence of favorable conditions (conditional proposal)."

The problem, as I keep mentioning, is that BaU involves a significant increase in GHG emissions - in Peru's case by around 75% between 2010 and 2030. So, even a 30% reduction in 2030 emissions amounts to a 22.3% real-terms increase. If only the conditional "reduction" is achieved, then it will amount to 40% real-terms increase.

They don't say how much international finance they seek, though they make it clear they are seeking it:

"In addition to governmental efforts, the participation of the national and international private sector, as well as the access to new financing sources and to international support, will enable that the level of expected emissions reduction, as well as the socioeconomic and environmental co-benefits related to the mitigation efforts, are fulfilled."

And: "...the country still needs international support in terms of funding, research, technology and capacity building to fulfill the proposed goals. The need to support the development and implementation of an effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting system is foreseen."

And "Funding for adaptation must be strengthened and increased, including the Green Climate Fund."

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Kazakhstan next (INDCs submitted on 28th September 2015).

They play the almost-standard ex-SSR game of using 1990 as their starting-point, since which time their emissions have collapsed (though started to grow again). " Kazakhstan has undergone a period of consistent growth from 2000 – 2010 during which GDP growth reached 8.3%. GDP growth during this period has always exceeded that of the world average."

"Unconditional target - A 15% reduction in GHG emissions by 31 December 2030 compared to the base year [1990]."

"Conditional target - A 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 31 December 2030 compared to the base year [1990],
subject to additional international investments, access to low carbon technologies transfer mechanism, green climate funds and flexible mechanism for country with economy in transition."

There are 2 problems with analysing this. The first is a growth commitment to 2050, compared with INDCs only to 2030:

"Kazakhstan’s long term objectives is to become one of the 30 most developed countries in the world by 2050."

The second is that they don't tell us what their emissions were in 1990 and they don't tell us what their emissions were in 2015, when they made their submission. However, they do offer this almost throw-away remark: "the current emissions of Kazakhstan... reached 80-85% from 1990." So it might actually be that they are offering a slight reduction in emissions in absolute terms, on a conditional basis at least. It's just that their coyness with numbers makes it difficult to know.

I simply cannot tell whether or not they are engaging seriously with the process. Their INDCs are much shorter than most. They don't tell us how much foreign money they want, although clearly by definition the conditional element of their offer requires foreign finance.

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:09 PM | Mark Hodgson

I think you are aware of this from 1980:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Report
"The Brandt Report suggests primarily that a great chasm in standard of living exists along the North-South divide and there should therefore be a large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. The countries North of the divide are extremely wealthy due to their successful trade in manufactured goods, whereas the countries South of the divide suffer poverty due to their trade in intermediate goods, where the export incomes are low."

If you try Googling Brandt Report, its commendable ideas crop up in revision notes for various diferent subjects. I had a copy in 1981-2. The UN has never had tax-raising powers.

"They" hadn't invented Global Warming in 1980.

Jul 26, 2017 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From Wikipedia! Edited highlights:

"Kyrgyzstan (/kɜːrɡɪˈstɑːn/ kur-gi-;Kyrgyz: Кыргызстан Kırgızstan (Kyrgyz pronunciation: [qɯrʁɯsˈstɑn]);Russian: Киргизия), officially the  (Kyrgyz: Кыргыз Республикасы Kırgız Respublikası; Russian:Кыргызская Республика Kyrgyzskaya Respublika), is a country in Central Asia. Landlocked and mountainous, Kyrgyzstan is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west and southwest, Tajikistan to the southwest and China to the east. Its capital and largest city is Bishkek."

"Kyrgyzstan has periodically fallen under foreign domination and attained sovereignty as a nation-state only after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991."

"Since independence, Kyrgyzstan has officially been a unitary parliamentary republic, although it continues to endure ethnic conflicts, revolts, economic troubles, transitional governments[ and political conflict.Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Turkic Council, theTÜRKSOY community and the United Nations."

"Despite the backing of major Western lenders, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, Kyrgyzstan has had economic difficulties following independence. Initially, these were a result of the breakup of the Soviet trading bloc and resulting loss of markets, which impeded the republic's transition to a demand economy."

"Kyrgyzstan has significant deposits of metals including gold and rare earth metals. Due to the country's predominantly mountainous terrain, less than 8% of the land is cultivated, and this is concentrated in the northern lowlands and the fringes of theFergana Valley."

"Political stability appeared to be elusive, however, as various groups and factions allegedly linked to organized crime jockeyed for power. Three of the 75 members of Parliament elected in March 2005 were assassinated, and another member was assassinated on 10 May 2006 shortly after winning his murdered brother's seat in a by-election. All four are reputed to have been directly involved in major illegal business ventures"

Popular games played on horseback include:

"Kyz Kuumai – a man chases a girl in order to win a kiss from her, while she gallops away; if he is not successful she may in turn chase him and attempt to beat him with her "kamchi" (horsewhip)"

It is difficult to understand what part Global Warming played in any of this. It is easy to understand that the people suffer, through no fault of their own.

Jul 26, 2017 at 6:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Armenia has been run and over-run by various countries, religions and political creeds for hundreds of years. From Wikipedia:
"Between the 16th century and 19th century, the traditional Armenian homeland composed of Eastern Armenia and Western Armenia came under the rule of the Ottoman and Iranian empires, repeatedly ruled by either of the two over the centuries. By the 19th century, Eastern Armenia had been conquered by the Russian Empire, while most of the western parts of the traditional Armenian homeland remained under Ottoman rule. During World War I, Armenians living in their ancestral lands in the Ottoman Empire were systematically exterminated in the Armenian Genocide. In 1918, following the Russian Revolution, all non-Russian countries declared their independence after the Russian Empire ceased to exist, leading to the establishment of the First Republic of Armenia. By 1920, the state was incorporated into the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, and in 1922 became a founding member of the Soviet Union"

The Armenian Genocide has its own Wikipedia entry, and is still capable of provoking conflict a hundred years on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

War in Syria has produced a refugee problem in Europe. Many Syrians have also fled East to Armenia, regarding it as the homeland their parents/grandparents had previously fled from.

More from Wikipedia:
"Because of the illicit border blockades by Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia continues to maintain solid relations with its southern neighbour Iran especially in the economic sector. Economic projects such a gas pipeline going from Iran to Armenia are being developed."

"Armenian mines produce copper, zinc, gold, and lead. The vast majority of energy is produced with fuel imported from Russia, including gas and nuclear fuel (for its one nuclear power plant); the main domestic energy source is hydroelectric."

Armenia also has a Science and Technology entry on Wikipedia. I appreciate it may have been translated a few times, to get into Armenian before getting into English, but bits do read like a wish list, dreamt up by foreign (EU?) policywonks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Armenia It does serve as an assessment of where Armenia wants to be, and what is required.

Armenia is desperate for power generation, and needs fossil fuels now.

Jul 26, 2017 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc, I'm beginning to think you have a point about the Brandt Report. As you say, the UN does not have tax-raising powers. The Paris Accords are a useful way to redistribute wealth without raising taxes.

Anyway, Maldives next, and as low-lying islands, they go for it in their INDCs. However, it's apparent that they have bigger problems than "just" climate change.

"Vision - To recognize the status of Maldives as a nation suffering from the adverse impacts of climate change and to build its capacity to ensure a safe, sustainable and resilient and prosperous future."

"The Maldives is a low lying island nation in the Indian Ocean with a population of 341,256 (2014). The country consists of about 1190 islands and the population is distributed over approximately 197 inhabited islands. The country’s main
economic sectors are tourism and fisheries, both of which are extremely climate sensitive.

The challenges Maldives faces in the context of climate change and development are similar to other small island nations. These challenges include, but are not limited to, the low lying nature of the islands, high population density, high levels of poverty, and a dispersed geography. Because Maldives is a small low lying island nation, its vulnerability to climate change impacts and associated extreme weather events and disasters are significantly greater due to limited ecological, socio-economic, and technological capacities. Maldives’ geography also makes communication difficult and transport expensive. Maldives’ small, physically isolated economy is highly susceptible to global influences and shocks.
Continuous efforts are being undertaken to increase adaptation actions and opportunities, and to undertake low emission development. However, limited financial resources, capacity and technology remain as major challenges in
addressing the impacts of climate change.
Maldives’ high level of fuel imports poses a number of challenges. The country’s energy demand is completely met by imported fossil fuel. Therefore it is imperative that the Maldives explore, develop and deploy indigenous, clean and
renewable sources to meet energy demand and ensure energy security.
Maldives’ 2011 energy balance shows that there was approximately 313 kilo tonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe) of energy consumed in the Maldives of which over 80% was from imported diesel oil as shown in Figure 1. Energy consumption
contributes to about 1.04 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2011 which is about 0.003% of global emissions. Energy consumption in various sectors constitutes a major share of the country’s GHG emissions. Although there has been some solar photovoltaic (PV) penetration, this amount is insignificant compared to the country's energy demand."

It seems clear from the above that Maldives' problems are deep-rooted, and nothing much, if at all, to do with climate change. But they do have problems, and they would like help,so they'll play the game:

"Considering the growth rate of the imported fossil fuel usage in the country, it is estimated that under the BAU scenario will generate about 3.3 million tonnes CO2 equivalent by year 2030. Maldives intends to take actions and undertakings
to reduce unconditionally 10% of its GHG emissions (under a BAU) by the year 2030. These actions and undertakings could be scaled-up to 24% in a conditional manner, in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by availability of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building."

As I've opined several times while looking at INDCs, there's arguably little point in worrying about individual countries' emissions, but I take the point that collectively they add up. The problem here, as so often, is that the mitigation offer is poor. The Maldives show a graph commencing in 2010, but in fairness, I'll take 2015 as the starting point. Even doing so, BaU sees their GHG emissions more than doubling by 2030. Their unconditional offer is so weak it sees emissions doubling by 2030, while their conditional offer (dependent on international finance) sees GHG emissions increase by around 70% by 2030.

Unsurprisingly, "Maldives is focusing its efforts, actions and undertakings in reducing its GHG emissions in the
energy sector."

Of course they are! If you could reduce your dependence on imports of oil and gas for your energy, using someone else's money to do so, and saving money over the long-term in the process, you would do so if you had any sense.

One might think the renewables dream has its perfect location somewhere like the Maldives, where it's windy and the sun shines a lot (unlike the UK). But even there it isn't simple:

"The main area of focus for mitigation is fuel switching to alternative energy options, which is severely constrained by the limited land area, geographic isolation of islands and geographic dispersion of populations. Solar irradiance is available in the country throughout the year, however due to lack of technical capacity, limited land area, already established diesel based power generation systems and high investment costs pose a major challenge to the introduction of solar PV systems in the country. Although ocean currents and the waves surrounding each island might be the perfect renewable energy resource for the Maldives and other SIDS, the technologies to harness them are still at pilot stages around the world and commercially not available. Wind resources are low due to the low lying and flat nature of the country, but efforts are ongoing to incorporate it into the energy mix.
These unfavorable conditions and barriers severely Maldives’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution limit the use of alternative energy sources in the Maldives and have resulted in Maldives being heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels."

They would like international financial support, but sadly they don't tell us how much.

Jul 27, 2017 at 8:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark I have visited the Maldives several times. It is odd, I don't recognize some of the content as applying to the country. Firstly, it is not subject to extreme weather effects. Typhoons do not occur as is demonstrated by the complete absence of coral debris ramparts. Even sea level rise can be tolerated so long as they take care of their reefs. The islands are accumulations of coral sand derived from the reefs and rises in sea level will allow healthy reefs to grow so contributing to increased sand accumulation raising the level of the islands naturally. The only natural hazard is a tsunami, which the low lying islands could be particularly susceptible, but of course this is not climate related.
The Maldive government has restricted tourism to the high end market and to certain specified islands (so keeping most of the population away from tourists). Tourism could be greatly expanded by developing some of the many uninhabited islands.
To my mind, the Maldives are blessed, except by the policies of its often very prescriptive governments.

Jul 27, 2017 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Alan, thanks for your input regarding the Maldives. It rather strengthens my suspicion that many countries are going into overdrive when writing their INDCs in order to try to maximise the money they can extract from the process around the Paris Accords. As I've said several times, I don't blame anyone for trying to improve their lot, but I do blame the media and western politicians for apparently not having a clue about what is going on here.

Anyway, Myanmar (formerly Burma) next (INDCs submitted on 28th September 2015).

They start their INDC with the usual homage to climate change problems. They then try to square what looks to me like an unsquare-able (sorry, ugly non-word) circle:

"Climate Change is the most threatening global challenge faced by humanity. Myanmar is one of the most highly vulnerable countries in the world to the adverse impacts of climate change facing threats from extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding and drought. Without action to adapt to these threats, the prospects for the economic development of our population of over 50 million will be hindered and our environment degraded.
With the largest standing forests on mainland South East Asia, Myanmar currently absorbs more greenhouse gases than it emits, thereby already making a significant contribution to global efforts to tackle climate change. However, we are currently in the process of rapid industrialisation and increasing urbanisation which will lead to an increase in our emissions of greenhouse gases. We therefore intend to implement a series of policies and actions to maintain the harmony between growth and mitigating climate change.This means planning the development of our economy so it takes place in a sustainable manner, whilst also confronting multiple challenges such poverty alleviation and protecting our population against climate related disasters."

And, even though they have no responsibility at all for GHG emissions, being a net sink, they want lots of money to enable them to contribute to the fight against GHGs:

"However, as one of the world’s least developed countries (an “LDC”), existing technological, financial and capacity gaps limit Myanmar’s ability to achieve its vision for sustainable development while balancing socio-economic development with environmental sustainability. For this reason, Myanmar requires significant support from the international community for capacity building, technology development and transfer and financial resources to implement the actions proposed in this INDC. Once received Myanmar looks forward to developing its contribution further to the global effort to mitigate climate change while increasing its capacity to adapt to the negative consequences of climate change."

Despite that, their mitigation offer seems rather vague:

"The actions presented below will result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The implementation of these actions will be contingent to a number of factors. This includes support for capacity-building, technology development and transfer, and financial resources from the international community, as well as the active participation of the national and international private sector.
The information required to estimate GHG emissions was collected and an estimate produced. However, given the deadline and the current available data, it was decided not to include the estimate in the INDC, as deemed not sufficiently reliable. Further analysis to quantify the GHG emission will be conducted as a result of the actions and strategies below, i.e. as part of the implementation plan described in Section 4. This will allow Myanmar to present projections of anticipated GHG impact assessments in future revisions of its INDC."

In fact, whatever they are proposing, it seems it is entirely conditional on international finance and support:

"As an LDC, Myanmar requires further capacity-building along with access to technological and financial support from the international community to implement the INDC. In order to realise the intended mitigation contribution set out above and meet the nation’s needs with respect to adaptation, Myanmar requires a significant amount of international support. The success of the mitigation and adaptation activities in Myanmar is wholly dependent on receiving sufficient technology-transfer, capacity-building and financial support from developed and more experienced countries, international agencies, donors, and the wider international community."

Jul 27, 2017 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mauritius next (INDC submitted on 28th September 2015).

I'm no longer surprised by how often I'm reading this sort of thing:

"As a Small Island Developing State (SIDS), Mauritius is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and its adverse impacts on socio-economic development. We know that the global greenhouse gases (GHG) emission from major big country polluters are responsible for climate change. While SIDS contribute only 1% of the global GHG emission, they are the ones to suffer most from the adverse impacts of climate change. In fact, according to the latest World Risk Report (2014), Mauritius is ranked as the 14th country with the highest disaster risk and ranked 7th on the list of countries most exposed to natural hazard."

Their lack of responsibility for their claimed climate problems is reinforced by this statistic:

"In 2014, the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Republic of Mauritius was approximately 5.1 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide equivalent, up from 4.8MtC02e in 2010. This is relatively very small, representing just 0.015% of global emissions in 2010. In terms of absolute emissions, Mauritius ranks 128th out of 216 states and territories."

They put their offer and their need for financial help to achieve it in a box, to make sure we don't miss the point:

"The Republic of Mauritius imperatively needs international technical and financial support to enable it to abate its
greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, by the year 2030, relative to the business as usual scenario of 7 million metric
tonnes CO2 equivalent."

The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly their contribution to global GHGs is almost insignificant. Secondly, the BUsiness as Usual scenario will see their GHG emissions increase by around 40%. The proposed 30% reduction against BaU does, in fairness, represent a tiny reduction in absolute emissions, but it is, I stress, tiny, both in percentage terms and in volume.

Against that, are the costs:

"The Republic of Mauritius will require international support in its efforts to transition towards a low carbon development path through greater utilisation of renewable sources of energy (biomass, solar and wind), and to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change that affect several sectors of the economy. The implementation of the INDC of the Republic of Mauritius will require over USD 1.5 billion for mitigation measures and about USD 4 billion for adaptation measures across all the sectors up to 2030 in the form of finance, investment, technology development and transfer, and
capacity-building to fully realize its intended contribution." Needless to say, that adds up to more than $5.5Bn.

They don't in their INDC tell us their population, but an internet search suggests it is definitely below 1.3M. So that's well over $4,000 for every man, woman and child in Mauritius, in order to achieve a marginal reduction in what are already minimal GHG emissions. Value for money?

Jul 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Brazil next (INDC submitted on 28th September 2015).

Unless I'm tired and/or naive and/or missing something, it actually reads like one of the most impressive documents I have so far seen.

First of all, I don't see them asking anyone for money.

This looks like a real reduction, not a fake one which is really an increase, but made to sound like a reduction, by using a Business as Usual scenario. No, they seem to be serious:

"Contribution: Brazil intends to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 37% below 2005 levels in 2025.
Subsequent indicative contribution: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% below 2005 levels in 2030."

"Brazil’s iNDC corresponds to an estimated reduction of 66% in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP (emissions intensity5) in 2025 and of 75% in terms of emissions intensity in 2030, both in relation to 2005.
In the period 2004-2012, Brazil's GDP increased by 32%, while emissions dropped 52% (GWP-100; IPCC AR5), delinking economic growth from emission increase over the period, while at the same time Brazil lifted more than 23 million people out of poverty.
Per capita emissions decreased from 14.4 tCO2e (GWP-100; IPCC AR5) in 2004 to an estimated 6.5 tCO2e (GWP-100; IPCC AR5)in 2012. At this 2012 level, Brazil's per capita emissions are already equivalent to what some developed countries have considered fair and ambitious for their average per capita emissions by 2030. Brazil's per capita
emissions will decline further to an estimated 6.2 tCO2e (GWP-100; IPCC AR5) in 2025 and 5.4 tCO2e (GWP-100; IPCC AR5) in 2030 under this contribution.
Brazil will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of continued population and GDP growth, as well as income per capita increase, making therefore this contribution unequivocally very ambitious."

My only reservation about how impressive this seems, is that they seem to be relying on reducing deforestation and yet also using biofuels to achieve their targets:

"Brazil already has one of the largest and most successful biofuel programs to date, including cogeneration of electricity using biomass. Brazil has achieved the most impressive results of any country in reducing emissions from deforestation, mainly by reducing the deforestation rate in the Brazilian Amazonia by 82% between 2004 and 2014. Brazil’s energy mix today consists of 40% of renewables (75% of renewables in its electricity supply), which amounts to three times the world average in renewables, and more than four times the OECD average.This already qualifies Brazil as a low carbon economy.
Brazil intends to adopt further measures that are consistent with the 2°C temperature goal, in particular:
i) increasing the share of sustainable biofuels in the Brazilian energy mix to approximately 18% by 2030, by expanding biofuel consumption, increasing ethanol supply, including by increasing the share of advanced biofuels (second generation), and increasing the share of biodiesel in the diesel mix;
ii) in land use change and forests:
- strengthening and enforcing the implementation of the Forest Code, at federal, state and municipal levels;
- strengthening policies and measures with a view to achieve, in the Brazilian Amazonia, zero illegal deforestation by 2030 and compensating for greenhouse gas emissions from legal suppression of vegetation by 2030;
- restoring and reforesting 12 million hectares of forests by 2030, for multiple purposes;
- enhancing sustainable native forest management systems, through georeferencing and tracking systems applicable to native forest management, with a view to curbing illegal and unsustainable practices;
iii) in the energy sector, achieving 45% of renewables in the energy mix by 2030, including:
- expanding the use of renewable energy sources other than hydropower in the total energy mix to between 28% and 33% by 2030;
- expanding the use of non-fossil fuel energy sources domestically, increasing the share of renewables (other than hydropower) in the power supply to at least 23% by 2030, including by raising the share of wind, biomass and solar;
- achieving 10% efficiency gains in the electricity sector by 2030."

I thought Brazil's INDCs would be interesting. They have surprised me, and in a pleasant way.

Jul 27, 2017 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Central African Republic next (INDC submitted on 28th September 2015).

Their primary submission was written in French. I am grateful that they have supplied an English translation.

They play the card of being vulnerable to climate change, but they don't overplay their hand in that regard, and they admit that basically they have huge problems:

"The Central African Republic is among the poorest countries on the planet, with a human development index estimated at 0.341 in 2013. Poverty affects more than half the population, with the corollaries of food insecurity and a lack of basic social services. The Central African economy still relies on a primary agricultural sector with low value added and intensive use of poorly qualified and essentially rural manpower. To the various internal constraints to the country’s development, including the low level of industrialisation and the land-locked nature of the country, are added the
ongoing changes in the climate, which are reflected in different impacts: slow and gradual changes in the environment, variation in the seasons and on occasions extreme climate events (floods, droughts, tropical storms etc.) that may result in natural disasters."

Their contribution to GHGs globally is minuscule:

"The annual emissions of the Central African Republic, estimated at 116,285.49 kt eq-CO2 in 2010, or 26 tons eq-CO2/person, represent less than 0.002% of global emissions."

Their mitigation offer is as follows:

"The Central African Republic aspires to reduce its emissions by 5% and 25%, respectively, in the 2030 and 2050 horizons in comparison to its reference BaU emissions and to increase its sequestration potential. With international support, it will emit around 33,076.1 kt eq-CO2 less in 2050 than the annual reference emissions." The problem is, Business as Usual will see GHG emissions increase by 62.7% between 2010 and 2050, so we are talking about very real increases in GHGs here - albeit in absolute terms those emissions will still be very low.

Although they don't make a big thing out of it, they would in fact appear to be a "carbon sink":

"Emissions for the reference year:
Emission 116,285.49 kt eq-CO2
Sequestration 330,000 kt eq-CO2"

Then again, that isn't entirely clear. The following suggests that the sequestration figure is potential rather than actual:

"The reference data show the inventory of greenhouse gases in 2010 as published in the Second Communication of the Central African Republic. Greenhouse gas emissions total 116,285.49 kt eqCO2 with sectoral contributions of 89.46% for land use change and forestry; 5.26% for agriculture; 5.19% for energy (of which 4.91% is wood energy); 0.09% for waste and marginal amounts for industrial processes and use of solvents. In addition, the sequestration potential is evaluated at 330,000 kt eq-CO2,, 62% for land abandoned after use and 38% for biomass."

Then again, on the subject of sequestration, they also say (which seems to confirm the "carbon sink" view) this:

"Taking into consideration the net rate of deforestation, which is 0.155% (EDF 2013), the country’s potential for sequestration will be 310,146.43 ± 155,073.222 kt eq-CO2 in 2050, while it was 330,000 kt eq-CO2 in 2010, a reduction of 6.02%."

They also add this very interesting statement, which is grist to the mill to those who like to point out that the alarmists often choose to ignore or downplay the potentially positive impacts of climate change:

"However, it should be noted that the Central African Republic’s climate forecasts, which show an increase in rainfall and insolation, are favourable for the appearance of forest re-growth throughout the country. This phenomenon will increase the sequestration capacity of the forests."

Whatever all this adds up to, it comes with a price tag:

"The needed financing totals US $3.802 billion over the commitment period, i.e. US $2.248 billion to implement the mitigation measures and US $1.554 billion for the development of resilience to climate change.
Underestimation of the cost of investments needed for adaptation may keep in place the development gap caused by climate hazards. The approach taken by the FUND model, which will be supported by the preparatory work of the National Adaptation Plan, estimates the country’s needs for adaptation to climate change at an average of around US $34,500,000 per year up to 2030 and an average of US $57,500,000 per year up to the year 2050."

They tell us that "The population of the Central African Republic is estimated at 5 million..." so that's around $760 for every man, woman and child in the Central African Republic. It is much less than some countries are asking for, but then again the offer in terms of GHGs is also arguably utterly insignificant.

Jul 27, 2017 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Jul 27, 2017 at 9:49 AM | Supertroll & Mark Hodgson

Islands and coastlines, from a European yottie perspective.

The Viking Longboat was seaworthy, and capable of being dragged up and down sandy/muddy beaches, up rivers, and even overland.

By the time of the Mary Rose, ships could dry out on mud or sand during a falling tide, but could not be moved. They were at risk if the wind got up.

Apart from small fishing boats, long stretches of exposed beach were useless for seafarers, so had little appeal for people to live locally. Natural sandy/muddy harbours were perfect, but these are not as common on foreign shorelines, as they are along the South and East Coast of England.

For the Naval powers of Europe, Islands and Coastlines with natural harbours became highly prized possessions. Modern guidebooks for yotties note many different natural harbours as being identified by Nelson as perfect/ideall etc.

A good island had to have bays/coves etc providing an anchorage with water ideally less than 100 feet deep, secluded from strong winds (if known about) and currents. Fresh water, food, trees for repairs etc were important, for the ship, and also for any colony, fort or settlement. Land for agriculture and/or rare species/spices was important.

Low lying coral islands such as the Maldives were fairly useless, on all counts. As were all the miles of beaches along the Mediterranean Coast of Spain. Menorca, Mallorca and Malta were valued.

Steam power did not change the relative value of good anchorages, but increased the dominance of the British Empire as coal could be stored on "British" land strategically around the world, hence the importance of the Falkland Islands for British ships to and from the Pacific via Cape Horn.

World War 2 brought air travel, electricity, vehicles etc to many islands. Airfields subsequently brought tourists to useless beaches and islands.

Few ocean islands are rich in fossil fuels. Ironically, the possibility of oil and gas in waters off the Falklands may be increasing local tensions.

I started typing this in response to Supertroll over 12 hours ago. The Maldives were never going to have a market for mass tourism. They opted for the more exclusive clientele with the money for exclusivity.

Jul 28, 2017 at 12:32 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Thank you gc. At the end of the day, it does seem that the Maldives can be as "green" as they want, but they're highly dependent on wealthy tourists, and they are going to arrive by air...

BY the way, some time ago I read Churchill's history of the First World War. Of course, until he was the scapegoat (correctly?) for Gallipoli, he was First Lord of the Admiralty. Reading about the UK's world-wide coaling stations, and the decision to change to oil for powering the fleet was very interesting.

Jul 28, 2017 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Jul 28, 2017 at 8:44 AM | Mark Hodgson

HMS Warrior (1860) was the first iron hulled and iron clad British Warship, steam powered, but stil with a full sail plan. Within about 10 years, the Royal Navy had given up on sails.

HMS Dreadnought (1906) changed battleship design, but was purely coal fired. Subsequent Dreadnoughts were coal fired, but with some oil available to spray on the coal, but coal for new Battleships was ended at the start of WW1.

The Battle of Jutland was mainly fuelled by coal, for both sides.

The design of HMS Dreadnought was driven by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher

Recalled from retirement at the start of WW1, Churchill and Fisher "clashed", particularly over Gallipoli

Jul 28, 2017 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc, we digress!

Senegal next (INDC submitted on 26th September 2015). Unfortunately it's in French, and no English translation has been provided, so as always I'll do my incompetent best with it. I'll stick to the main points.

Early on they say their mitigation and adaptation plans as set out in their INDC will cost $21.5Bn. This isn't too far short of their stated GDP ($27.72 Bn). With a stated population of 13,508,715, the estimated costs come to a little over $2,000 per man, woman and child in Senegal.

They discuss their offer by economic sector, all against a Business as Usual scenario, with 2010 as the base year, and 2030 as their final reference point.

Most important is the energy sector, with an unconditional offer to reduce emissions by 6% and an unconditional offer to reduce them by 31%. The problem is that BaU sees their emissions for this sector close to quadrupling, and their unconditional offer makes little impact on that. Even their conditional offer sees emissions close to trebling.

As for their industrial sector, BaU would see emissions more than doubling. Their single offer of a 10% reduction against BaU still sees emissions doubling.

Their waste sector sees emissions increasing by around 1/3 by 2030 on a BaU scenario. Their unconditional offer of a 13% reduction by 2030 would see emissions increase slightly, and their unconditional offer of a 31% decrease by 2030 against BaU would actually see a slight overall real-terms reduction.

Their graph for the agricultural sector simply shows emissions doubling by 2030, without qualification.

The graph they show for forestry also shows its sequestration levels falling by 2030 on any basis.

An overall graph showing all sectors combined suggests emissions increasing to around 250% of 2010 levels by 2030 on a BaU basis; increasing by a slightly smaller amount on an unconditional basis; and close to doubling on a conditional basis.

So, more of the usual really. A poor country, asking for quite a lot of money to increase its emissions considerably, just by not quite so much as would be the case without foreign money.

Jul 28, 2017 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Kiribati next (INDC submitted on 26th September 2015).

A very poor country with next to GHG emissions, seeking to use the Paris Accords to obtain some much-needed international finance:

"The Republic of Kiribati is recognized as a Least Developed Country (LDC) and is ranked 170th of 186 countries on per capita GDP. Comprising 33 atolls and reef islands, the country is dispersed over 3.5 million square kilometres, giving rise to logistical issues in a country with unreliable connections. Kiribati’s contribution to global warming is insignificant with emissions per capita (approximately 0.6tCO2e/capita in 2014) among the lowest in the world. The only major sector of emissions for Kiribati is energy (including transport), with slight contributions from agriculture and forestry.
The country is one of the most vulnerable countries to the adverse impacts of climate change. Inundation and erosion are frequent impacts of climate change destroying key areas of land - storm surges and wave-overtopping contaminate the fresh groundwater lens which is vital for the population’s water security. An economic evaluation of the costs of climate change related risks has been estimated to be 35% of Kiribati GDP. The estimate takes into account only the
potential impacts of climate change on coastal zone (US$7-$13 million a year) and water resources (US$1-$3 million a year)."

"In regards to mitigation, Kiribati has no obligation under the UNFCCC to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, there have been significant efforts to date to reduce fossil fuel imports and increase domestic renewable energy use. These efforts include setting up of the Kiribati Solar Energy Company which provides solar lighting on rural islands and markets solar appliances; trialling of coconut oil based bio-fuel; and on-grid solar PV on urban islands."

They have a rather unbalanced economy and are heavily dependent on aid:

"Thus public sector dominates the economy, accounting for more than half of estimated gross domestic product (GDP). The general level of demand is largely determined by the government’s recurrent budget, half of which is funded by access license fees paid by foreign fishing vessels to catch tuna in Kiribati’s exclusive economic zones and by earnings of Kiribati’s reserve fund invested in overseas financial markets. Total demand draws in close to $100 million of imports
yearly, while yearly exports of goods are valued at around $5 million. The balance of payments current account is sustained by factor income from abroad (i.e., tuna vessel fishing licenses, seafarers‟ remittances, and investment earnings) and grants received by government, churches, and other non-government organizations." ANd:

"As an atoll country, Kiribati is almost entirely dependent upon imported food and fuel. Subsistence farming and fishing are the primary economic activities. Some 18% of the population is in permanent employment, and over half of these work for the government."

They are a "carbon sink" with no obligation under the Paris Accords to take any measures to reduce GHGs:

"Current (2014) greenhouse gas emissions from Kiribati are approximately 63,000tCO2e/year. This is extremely small:
representing approximately just 0.0002% of global emissions. Kiribati also has very low per capita emissions, at just: 0.6tCO2 per person in 2014. This is less than the average per capita emissions of sub-Saharan Africa (0.8tCO2/capita)

However, they presumably see making an offer as a means to unlock funding:

"Kiribati is a LDC SIDS with limited resources, that will nonetheless commit to reduce emissions by:
13.7% by 2025 and 12.8% by 2030 compared to a BaU projection.
In addition to these quantified outcomes, Kiribati will proactively protect and sustainably manage its mangrove resources, as well as protect and enhance coastal vegetation and seagrass beds. Together these actions represent effective stewardship of more than 6 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide stored, more than 100 times the current
annual national emissions inventory.
On the understanding that a global agreement addresses international assistance to access financial and technical resources, Kiribati can, with international assistance, contribute a further:
 48.8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025; and
 49% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to the BaU projection.
With appropriate international assistance, Kiribati can reduce its emissions by more than 60% (61.8%) by 2030."

They don't tell us, so far as I can see, what BaU means in terms of increasing current emissions, but by looking at some of the figures offered and extrapolating from them, I believe their offer of "reductions" still amounts to a real-terms increase in GHG emissions over the period of 2020-2030 which is the period of their offer. Having said that, of course, in global terms any increase is utterly insignificant.

The financial help they seek seems to be approximately $75 million. In the scheme of all this, their request is also insignificant. They don't actuall tell us what their population is, but extrapolation from the figures that are offered, suggests something over 100,000 in total.and a quick internet search suggests it may be around 115,000. Which means they seek only approximately $650 per person, but for the utterly insignificant reduction (possibly actually increase) in GHGs offered, if one extrapolated such figures across the undeveloped world, the cost of the Paris Accords would surely be unaffordable on any measure.

Jul 28, 2017 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Moldova next (INDC submitted on 25th September 2015).

Early on they lead with an impressive-sounding offer (it certainly isn't worded as a commitment):

"The Republic of Moldova intends to achieve an economy-wide unconditional target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 64-67 per cent below its 1990 level in 2030 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 67 per cent.
The reduction commitment expressed above could be increased up to 78 per cent below 1990 level conditional to, a global agreement addressing important topics including low-cost financial resources, technology transfer, and technical cooperation, accessible to all at a scale commensurate to the challenge of global climate change."

Again we see the favourite trick of former SSRs of making their offer against 1990 emissions levels. They give the game away with some statistics:

"Base Year: 1990.
Total Emissions in Base Year: 43.4 Mt CO2 eq (without LULUCF) and 37.5 Mt CO2 eq (with LULUCF)."

And:

"The Republic of Moldova’s responsibility in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is low. In 2013, the Republic of Moldova emitted 12.8 Mt CO2 eq (without LULUCF) and 12.7 Mt CO2 eq (with LULUCF), which is less than 0.03 per cent of current world’s emissions."

So the basic offer would see current emissions increasing by roughly 20%, although in fairness the extreme offer ("up to 78 per cent below 1990 level conditional to, a global agreement addressing important topics including low-cost financial resources, technology transfer, and technical cooperation") would actually see a real reduction in GHG emissions. HOwever, there is a price to be paid by the international community to achieve a small reduction in "less than 0.03 per cent of current world’s emissions."

"...in order to reach the conditional target of up to 78 per cent reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, appropriate international financial support approximately equal to US$ 4.9-5.1 billion,
i.e. about US$ 327-340 million per year until 2030, is needed; the support needed will be in addition to the domestic allocations to cover the required abatement costs." This is in addition to extensive financial assistance which they candidly admit they are already receiving from the international community (pp 27-28 of the INDC for more information).

Their population has declined since 1990, but currently seems to be relatively stable at just over 4 million. So, in addition to current substantial international aid, they seek to achieve their mitigation target the sum of around $1,250 for every man, woman and child in Moldova.

Jul 28, 2017 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson