Abby L. Harvey
GHG Daily
2/2/2016
The variance of commitments pledged by developed and developing nations in the Paris climate agreement took center stage Tuesday during a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Republican members of the committee and their witnesses argued the commitments made by developed countries are far more burdensome than those made by developing countries. The other side of the aisle suggested that though the commitments are different, most countries have put forth ambitious pledges.
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) further stated that not only are the pledges unequal, even together they are not substantial. “Even if all 196 countries continue their promised reductions for each year after 2031 until 2100, it will only reduce temperatures by one-sixth of a degree Celsius,” Smith said.
The Paris Agreement was adopted Dec. 12 at the 21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It consists of voluntary nationally determined contributions within a legally binding framework under which the contributions are reviewed by countries and their ambition is ratcheted up every five years. The U.S. has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Because nations were allowed to develop their own intended contributions, they take varying forms. For example, China, instead of a flat emissions reduction target, committed to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 and to increase the share of non-fossil-fueled power generation in the country to approximately 20 percent.
Such a commitment is not adequate, according to Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “The Paris emissions pledges are hugely unequal and will not change appreciatively the rising trajectory of global emissions. While the Unites States, Europe, Japan, and a few other countries have offered up deep emissions cuts, nearly all developing countries, particularly the large emerging economies, have offered little beyond business as usual.”
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) questioned whether the other 195 countries that signed the agreement will follow through with their commitments and what it would mean for the U.S. if they did not. “If climate change theory is right, assuming that all other countries comply and don’t cheat then we will all stay equal, … in our respective competitive positions. … But if the theory is wrong, or if countries cheat, not that they would ever do that,” he said with an air of sarcasm, “the U.S. stands to lose the most in terms of our competitive position.”
Committee Democrats for their part praised the administration for leading the way during the negotiations to establish an agreement acceptable to the majority of countries and for committing to help developing countries reach their goals. “This is something that the United States is uniquely qualified to lead in. We would not have the Paris deal had the United States not been a leader there,” Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, said during the hearing.
Steer also defended the actions of developing countries, saying committee Republicans and his fellow witnesses were not giving credit where credit was due. “We look at the facts, we leave our opinions at home, and we look at the facts. … Most people still perceive China to be opening up hundreds of coal plants and increasing their use of coal. In 2014, China shrank its consumptions of coal. In the first 10 months of 2015 coal consumption in China fell by nearly 5 percent,” Steer said, asserting that developing countries are serious about their commitments.
Much debate centered on the Green Climate Fund in which developed nations have committed to investing $100 billion per year. The fund is nothing more than a global transfer of wealth, Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) asserted. “Only the developed countries are required to pay into the Green Climate Fund, which is going to be $100 billion a year as a floor beginning in the year 2020, and all of those dollars go to the developing world, which is in the global south,” Steven Groves, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said in response. “If that’s not kind of a global wealth transfer I’m not sure what is.”
However, Steer said, the $100 billion “is not all public money, it includes private money, it includes the money that comes from the private sector that can actually be stimulated by the public money.”
Furthermore, he explained, contributing a specific amount to the Green Climate Fund is not a legal obligation under the Paris agreement. “[Developing nations] need help, quite frankly,” Steer said. “Under the agreement in Paris, the obligation for the United States or any other country to give any specific amount of money does not exist, that is not a legal obligation, what is required is that we are transparent about the extent to which we are willing to help low-income countries.”
