This report evaluates whether Japan’s energy policies and long-term targets are compatible with meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and what this means for policymaking and investors.  

Climate Analytics’ submission to the Talanoa Dialogue summarises the latest scientific findings relating to the 1.5°C limit. It outlines what climate impacts are being experienced around the globe at the current level of warming of around 1°C, such as extreme weather events, more intense tropical cyclones, impacts on oceans systems and health. It also discusses the benefits of the 1.5°C limit in terms of avoided impacts, especially on the most vulnerable communities, and what is needed to limit warming to 1.5°C.  

Implications of exploiting Canning Basin and other unconventional gas resources for achieving climate targets  

Limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2.0°C requires strong mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Concurrently, emissions of anthropogenic aerosols will decline, due to coemission with GHG, and measures to improve air quality. However, the combined climate effect of GHG and aerosol emissions over the industrial era is poorly constrained. This study shows the climate impacts from removing present-day anthropogenic aerosol emissions and compares them to the impacts from moderate GHG-dominated global warming.  

There have been proposals for the UNFCCC to adopt a dual-term greenhouse gas accounting standard: 20-year GWPs alongside the presently accepted 100-year GWPs. It is argued that the advantage of such a change would be to more rapidly reduce short term warming and buy time for CO2 reductions. This briefing shows why these changes would be counterproductive and the benefits overstated.  

The use of blue carbon to offset and hence effectively avoid required emission reductions in other sectors such as fossil fuel combustion, industry, agriculture, international aviation and marine activities would undermine our ability to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.  

The Finkel Review was an opportunity to propose a science-based approach to the short and long-term development of Australia's electricity sector consistent with the low-carbon transformation required to meet the goals and obligations of the Paris Agreement. Unfortunately, should the government accept the minimum electricity sector pathway suggested by the Finkel Review, Australia would very likely not be able to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, which calls for countries to adopt measures to hold global warming well below 2°C and limit this to 1.5°C.