Media coverage

Pledges made by countries to cut their carbon emissions ahead of a crunch climate summit in Paris later this year will delay the world passing the threshold for dangerous global warming by just two years, according to a new analysis.“The action and ambition we have seen to date is far from sufficient and unless it is rapidly accelerated, the difficulties of limiting warming below 2C will be extreme,” said Dr Bill Hare, the founder of Climate Action Tracker and a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

What can we say about the climate pledges that countries have submitted so far? The Climate Action Tracker, produced by four research orgsanisations in Europe, has rated most of the INDCs that have come in so far as 'medium'. This means that if all governments adopted this notion of how much they should do, warming would probably exceed 2°C.

Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia and president of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York calls for climate action by India and China, quoting research by Climate Analytics.

Under its INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution), Canada proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels in 2030. This translates to a 21% reduction below 2005 emissions levels excluding forestry, or 2% below 1990 levels.

On 15 May 2015, Canada submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), communicating its economy-wide target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% below 2005 levels in 2030. After accounting for forestry we estimate this is a reduction of 21% below 2005 levels of industrial GHG emissions [1]. This is equivalent to a reduction of 2% below 1990 industrial GHG emissions levels.

Climate Analytics' Bill Hare explains the relevance of the SED briefing released recently for Australia and the rest of the world.

Experts have revealed that limiting global warming to 2°C is feasible and will bring about many co-benefits, but poses substantial technological, economic and institutional challenges. The experts urge that the 2 °C limit should therefore be seen as a line that needs to be stringently defended. Less warming would be preferable and efforts should be made to push the defence line as low as possible.

The findings of the Structured Expert Dialogue vindicate the stance of SIDS and LDCs in insisting on the review occurring and on keeping the 1.5°C goal in sight during the negotiations over the last several years. The SED report should lead to increasing recognition the climate policy world of the rising level of scientific evidence that indicates the 2°C goal is inadequate and that ultimately limiting warming below 1.5°C would be substantially safer.

Just in case you were wondering, a key “Structured Expert Dialogue” between IPCC scientists and UNFCCC negotiators has just released its technical summary. And, happily, it has been digested by the Climate Analytics team into this short, clear overview. This SED is news because it essentially confirms the arguments that the Small Island Developing States and the Least Developed Countries have been making for years, that 2°C warming limit is too high. And that it must not be crossed.

The UNFCCC’s Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) published its technical summary last week. The summary states that using the globally-agreed warming limit of 2˚C as a “guardrail” is not safe, and that Governments should aim for 1.5˚C instead.Today, the Berlin-based research organisation, Climate Analytics, released a briefing on the main points covered by the SED.