All governments must have presented climate commitments compatible with the objectives of the Paris Agreement within a year. But assessing the individual goals of states is a highly sensitive and controversial exercise.
“It’s so political that I don’t think it can take place within the framework of the United Nations” within which the Paris Agreement is part, summarizes Anne Olhoff, one of the authors of the annual benchmark report of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), on the gap between States’ commitments and actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The decision adopted by all states at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow in November calls on each of them to strengthen “where appropriate” by the end of 2022 their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2030, to “be in line” with the Paris Agreement which aims to limit warming to well below + 2 ° C compared to the pre-industrial era, if possible +1.5 ° C.
But the ambition of the Paris Agreement is collective, and there is no body responsible for evaluating the national trajectories determined by the States.
“There is no ‘police’ who check, this is a weakness of the process, but it allows countries to appropriate their climate objectives and to move forward at the pace suited to their political system”, comments the climatologist. Corinne Le Quéré.
UN-Climate is in charge of redoing its assessment of member states’ commitments for 2030 next year, but its analysis is global, predicting at this stage a temperature increase of + 2.7 ° C.
” Peer pressure “
The UNEP benchmark report goes further, especially for G20 countries responsible for two-thirds of emissions. “We are not pointing fingers, but we are drawing attention to the members of the G20 who are really not on track,” such as Australia or Mexico, indicates Anne Olhoff.
Would states be receptive to an external assessment anyway? Experts doubt it.
“We heard clearly in Glasgow from countries like the United States that they will determine on their own what a path to +1.5 ° C is,” said Bill Hare of the Climate Analytics research center.
And they are not alone. “I do not think that the responsibility lies with the European Union, because we are on the way of largely respecting [l’Accord de] Paris ”, recently declared the Vice-President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans. “We can prove it with facts! “
In this context, even the most ambitious States will have to “sharpen their arguments” to convince, comments Lola Vallejo, of the think tank IDDRI (Institute for sustainable development and international relations). “Then it is up to civil society, the media, and even other countries to play itching. “
“Countries that are not in line with the Paris Agreement will feel they are in the hot seat. Peer pressure works, ”continues a Western diplomat.
To provide weapons against this pressure, there are assessment tools such as the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) which classifies countries according to their estimated trajectory, towards +1.5 ° C, below +2 ° C, towards + 3 ° C, or worse.
Thanks to such independent analyzes, “the risk of being singled out could help some countries focus on what they need to do,” notes CAT partner Bill Hare, predicting “a lot of discussion and disagreement” d ‘here the deadline of the end of 2022.
Equity
Perhaps it is possible to make the criticism more acceptable by changing the messenger. Lola Vallejo thus underlines the “stronger” legitimacy when the opinion comes from within.
Like researchers who, in each country, imagine the paths to decarbonization or independent committees such as the British Climate Change Committee or the French High Council for the Climate, responsible for evaluating and informing the climate policies of the government which has established them. created.
In any case, even the most ambitious cannot “fall asleep on their laurels. […] because there is another question: that of the weight of historical emissions and equity, ”highlights Anne Olhoff.
The Paris Agreement underlines the principle of “common responsibilities, but differentiated” according to national situations. So, some believe that the rich countries, responsible for global warming, have a responsibility towards the poorest, and should therefore do more to achieve a “fair” contribution.
Historical emissions, emissions per capita, carbon footprint taking into account the emissions generated by imported goods, aid to poor countries…: there are multiple criteria to assess this “fair share” for the planet.
The key message does not change: to hope to curb global warming, “all countries must review their commitments and see if they can do more, and faster,” pleads Anne Olhoff.