At the other end of the spectrum, the United States, Greece, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Canada and Ireland provided less than half of their fair share in 2018 in the $80 billion and $100 billion scenarios. Canada and Australia ran deficits of more than $1 billion in 2018 under each effort-sharing approach. The United States provided less than 20% of its fair share and less than half of its funding in the form of grants. Elizabeth Bast, Executive Director of Oil Change International, said: “It is crucial that the United States makes its fair contribution to the fight against the climate crisis – and that means a complete overhaul of our role in the global energy system. Not only must we reduce our emissions equitably at home, but we must also stop fuelling the world`s dependence on fossil fuels. The United States is the world`s largest producer of oil and gas, and much of this production is exported abroad. Doing our fair share means we need to stop increasing production, end our tens of billions of dollars a year in fossil fuel subsidies, and lead a truly just fossil fuel transition. “We used the following literature to determine the `fair share range`: The issue of fair share is of particular importance for measures to limit warming to 1.5°C, as it is implausible that other countries would offset the U.S. deficit by contributing much more than their fair share to global efforts. The IPCC has set a 45% reduction in global emissions by 2030 (compared to 2010 levels) as a benchmark to limit warming to 1.5°C, but it is widely accepted that the richest major polluting countries need to reduce faster than this global average. Despite different methods, they are largely aligned to show that the US had a deficit of at least $21 billion and up to $40 billion a year between what it provided in climate finance in 2018 and its fair share of the $100 billion in climate finance efforts (between 40% and 47% of the total).
For each effort-sharing approach, the U.S. deficit was more than double that of all other countries combined. For more technical details, please read the backgrounder below. Omit the notes and the briefing is only 14 pages long. But – just a warning – it`s not an easy read. This is not possible, as it must describe both the policy and quantitative/methodological challenges we faced when we agreed on a certain definition of the US fair share, a certain number, and it must explain why we came to our particular conclusion. Along the way, it outlines why a group of USCAN affiliates embarked on this journey, summarizes some political anchors that need to be considered when reviewing our findings, and then moves on to numbers and graphs. The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) provides a way to compare goals and actions with the many interpretations of what could be considered “fair.” We hope it will help governments, the media and observers interpret countries` commitments under the Paris Agreement. Each possible level corresponds to the temperature results that would result if all other governments proposed targets with the same relative position within their respective equitable share range, i.e.
.dem same level of ambition. Judging what is right depends on the views and interests of governments. Many consider it right that those who have made a greater contribution to the problem or who have a greater capacity for action should do more. However, if the CAT ranked the US NDC 26-28% below 2005 levels (including LULUCF) by 2025, it would be classified as “inadequate”. The rating “Inadequate” shows that the U.S. NDC in 2025 is incompatible with limiting warming to less than 2°C, let alone limiting it to 1.5°C as required by the Paris Agreement, and is rather consistent with warming between 2°C and 3°C. If all countries followed this approach, warming would reach more than 2°C and up to 3°C. This means that the U.S.
NDC is the least stringent end of what would be a fair share of global efforts, and is not consistent with the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Agreement, unless other countries make much larger cuts and comparatively larger efforts. The long-term temperature target of the Paris Agreement must be achieved on the basis of justice. To achieve this goal, carbon dioxide phase-out (RDC) is necessary, but existing plans for THE deployment of the RDC are not sufficient to meet potential global needs, and there are no equitable approaches to the division of responsibilities for the RDC among nations. This study applies two common burden-sharing principles to show how the responsibility for the RDC could be divided between regions with 1.5°C and 2°C mitigation pathways. The U.S. Climate Action Network (USCAN) is an important network for more than 175 organizations working on climate change. USCAN`s mission is to build trust and alignment among members to address climate change in a fair and equitable manner. USCAN`s vision is a strong, inclusive and confident network of U.S.
organizations that have worked together to achieve the global goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and exceed the U.S. goals set out in that agreement. Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change, University of Manchester; The former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said: “This is exactly the kind of national response that requires a clear and honest reading of climate science. And it`s not just true to science, but just as important, it`s right. Only if we are willing to acknowledge the disproportionate responsibility for historical emissions, as well as the huge and persistent imbalance in per capita emissions, can we one day develop sufficient confidence for countries to work together to meet our Paris climate commitments. As part of this analysis, the United States. .