2.3.2 Progress of G20 countries
abatement of 47 MtCO2e (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). Prior to the initial auction, CCA (2014) reviewed studies of the potential of the ERF and concluded, “In short, these studies suggest that the ERF’s contribution to reducing emissions is likely to fall some way short of what is required to meet Australia’s minimum 2020 target”. Independent analyses (CAT, 2015; PBL 2015) project emissions above the pledge level.
China’s and India’s pledges are framed in terms of GHG intensity reductions from 2005 levels, and several sources indicate that both countries are currently on track to achieve them. Studies indicate that China, which pledged a reduction of 40-45 per cent in emissions intensity, is on track to achieve a reduction of at least 42 per cent (IEA, 2014a, 2014b; CAT, 2015; PBL, 2015; Sha et al., 2015). For India, Garg et al. (2014) show that by 2012, India had already reduced intensity by 17 per cent out of a pledged reduction of 20–25 per cent by 2020, and the CAT (2015) and PBL (2015) show India on track for a 36 per cent or 28 per cent reduction by 2020, respectively28.
The USA contends that the ‘with additional measures’ scenario from a 2014 addendum to its biennial report now represents its current policy trajectory. This trajectory shows the United States on track to achieve its pledge. Independent analyses, by contrast, find that further action is still necessary (see, for example, Rhodium Group, 2014; Belenky, 2015; CAT, 2015; Hausker et al., 2015; PBL, 2015).
Based on this analysis, three of the parties considered here – China, the EU28, and India – are on track to meet their pledges without purchasing offsets according to all available analyses. Three more – Brazil, Japan, and Russia – are on track according to most estimates and are within one per cent, one per cent, and three per cent of the pledge level, respectively, according to all estimates.
Japan announced an adjustment to its pledge in November 2013 from a 25 per cent reduction on 1990 levels to a 3.8 per cent reduction on 2005 levels (similar to an increase of about 3.1 per cent on 1990 levels). While this adjustment makes it much easier for Japan to achieve its pledge, current official projections still place Japan’s 2020 emissions slightly above its pledge threshold (UNFCCC, 2014). Independent projections differ slightly – CAT (2015) shows Japan on track to meet its revised pledge, whereas den Elzen et al. (2015) estimates a range in 2020 from slightly below to slightly above the pledge level. Japan’s actual trajectory, however, will depend significantly on the respective roles of nuclear power and coal-fired power to meet future needs29. Canada and Mexico are likely to require further action or purchased offsets, or both in order to meet their pledges, according to government and independent estimates. Mexico’s 2020 pledge is conditional on the provision of adequate financial and technological support from developed countries as part of a global agreement (Mexico, 2015). According to independent analysis, the Republic of Korea will also require further action to meet its pledge, but this cannot be verified based on publicly available official projections. Independent estimates of 2020 emissions range from well below to well above the pledge level (CAT, 2015; den Elzen et al., 2015). In the cases of Australia30 and the USA, government and independent analyses reach differing conclusions regarding each country’s progress towards its pledge. In the case of Australia, the government projects 2020 emissions of approximately 655 MtCO2e, not including the impact of the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF). The Australian government states that it is “on track” to meet its target of 533 MtCO2e, and that the ERF has contracted projects expected to deliver 28 Calculated for China based on an assumed GDP growth rate of 8.5 per cent (PBL, 2015) and 7.0 per cent (CAT, 2015), and for India based on an assumed GDP growth rate of 7.5 per cent (PBL, 2015) and 6.4 per cent (CAT, 2015). 29 A study commissioned by Japan’s Ministry of Environment (MOE, 2015) projected that by 2030, the share of renewable energy in the electricity sector could reach around 25-30 per cent in a ‘medium deployment’ case and 30-35 per cent in a ‘high deployment’ case. 30 See CCA (2014) for further discussion.
Insufficient information is currently available to determine whether Indonesia and South Africa are on track to meet their pledges. In the case of Indonesia, independent projections span a wide range, and official projections reflecting current policies are unavailable. In the case of South Africa, official projections to 2020 do not reflect recently adopted and implemented policies, and independent estimates vary widely, from well below the pledge level to well above it. South Africa’s pledge is conditional. Finally, Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have not proposed GHG reduction pledges for 2020 (as of 1 October 2015, Argentina and Turkey had submitted post-2020 pledges to the UNFCCC as part of their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions). Despite progress towards implementing policies in line with pledges, work remains to be done to bring all G20 countries into pledge attainment. Additionally, better data are necessary to adequately track this progress in some countries. Ensuring continued progress towards 2020 pledges will reduce the mitigation burden associated with achieving the post-2020 pledges put forward in the INDCs. This section has examined the extent to which G20 countries are proceeding towards the minimum level of their 2020 pledges, in light of the importance of pre-2020 GHG reductions for achieving consistency with 2°C scenarios, with implications beyond 2020. As described earlier in this chapter, this report does not address the global emissions gap in 2020, so the cumulative impact of the progress towards 2020 pledges is not calculated. UNEP (2014) found that emissions under the global current policy trajectory – taking into account progress by the G20 countries – roughly aligned with the higher-emissions end of the range associated with meeting the unconditional pledges. It is important to recognise that these pledge levels do not align with the least-cost pathways to limit warming with stringent mitigation action starting in 2010 (UNEP, 2014). Ideally, all countries with 2020 pledges will recognise the need to exceed their undertakings while countries without 2020 pledges will strengthen their own mitigation ambition with appropriate polices and measures. This would allow a transition towards a pathway in line with a least-cost trajectory after 2020, with the associated economic, technology, societal co-benefits, and climate outcome benefits highlighted in section 2.2. The Emissions Gap Report 2015 – The importance of pre-2020 action
11