By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris——Bio and Archives--October 22, 2021
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
For the first part, cutting emissions, the plan selected five “rich” countries plus the European Union to commit to actions consistent with “fair shares accounting.” Fair shares accounting, according to the plan, allocates emissions cuts to countries based on their “historical responsibility and capacity to act,” as judged by the less developed countries. In many cases, application of this approach means that the richer countries should already have passed net zero emissions by 2030 and be absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit. Alternatively, this “duty” can be expressed as a combination of a national emission cut and a financial contribution to the developing world’s mitigation and adaptation efforts. According to the plan:
- Cutting emissions consistent with attaining the UN’s 1.5 degree Celsius goal, “led by those with the biggest responsibility and capacity”
- Adaptation, with financial help to the most vulnerable
- Payment of reparations for loss and damage to the developing countries for the developed countries’ “historic failure to cut their emissions adequately”
- Increasing finance, including at least $100 billion per year up to 2024 and more thereafter
- Implementation of rules for transparency, carbon trading and common timeframes for accelerating action.
Now you are surely aware that the lead committee forging this document must have met in a room thick with whatever they were smoking, laughing their heads off. “With western media and environmental groups pressuring their own governments to ‘do the right thing,’ we might even get away with this heist,” you can almost hear them saying. We picture a pack of thieves arguing over how they plan to divide the spoils of a bank robbery they are set to initiate, while the socialists leading OECD nations are about to open the bank doors of their countries’ hard earned tax dollars. Not surprisingly, despite its status as the world’s largest GHG emitter (double that of the U.S.) and one of the wealthiest countries, China was not identified as requiring any changes of its emissions and so-called climate aid targets.
- Canada should increase its mitigation target to 140% below 2005 levels by 2030. This could comprise a reduction of at least 60% in domestic emissions along with climate aid of at least U.S. $4 billion annually.
- The United States should commit to reduce emissions by 195% below 2005 levels by 2030. “This could comprise a 70% reduction in domestic emissions and a further 125% reduction achieved by providing finances to the developing countries in the order of $80 billion per year.” This makes the April 2021 commitment by U.S. President Biden to increase climate aid to $5.7 billion annually by 2024 look rather paltry by comparison.
- The EU should increase its 2030 mitigation target to at least 65% below 1990 levels and increase its annual climate aid to developing countries to $33-$36 billion.
- The United Kingdom should cut domestic emissions to at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2030, and provide annual climate aid averaging $46 billion (33 billion British pounds)
- Australia should reduce its emissions by at least 65-80% below 2005 levels by 2030 and provide at least U.S. $2.5 billion annually in climate aid.
- Japan should increase its mitigation of domestic emissions to at least 45-50 % below 1990 levels by 2030 and increase its climate aid to at least $U.S. $9-10 billion annually.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.