Skip to content

Paris Won’t Cut Emissions–Bob Watson

November 10, 2019

By Paul Homewood



It’s apparently taken ex IPCC Chair Bob Watson four years to work out that the Paris Agreement did nothing to reduce emissions.

It’s a pity he did not read this blog, because I was saying the same thing when it was signed!

Steve Milloy reports:


The truth behind the Paris Agreement climate pledges

Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change; Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030


  • Only 28 European Union nations & 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030
  • China & India, top emitters, will reduce emissions intensity, but their emissions will increase
  • U.S., second top emitter, has reversed key national policies to combat climate change
  • Almost 70 percent of the pledges rely on funding from wealthy nations for their implementation

Almost three-quarters of the 184 climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to slow climate change, and some of the world’s largest emitters will continue to increase emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists. It is these increasing greenhouse emissions that are driving climate change.

The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, a new report published by the Universal Ecological Fund, examines in great detail the 184 voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement, the first collective global effort to address climate change.

“The comprehensive examination found that with few exceptions, the pledges of rich, middle income and poor nations are insufficient to address climate change,” says Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and co-author of the report. “Simply, the pledges are far too little, too late.”

Out of 184 pledges, almost 75 percent were judged as insufficient to stop climate change from continuing to accelerate in the next decade, according to the report and its coauthors.

Of the 184 pledges, only 36 were deemed sufficient based on commitments to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030; 12 pledges were considered partially sufficient for their commitments to reduce emissions between 40-20 percent by 2030; 136 pledges were partially or totally insufficient. See annex for map and tables with the details of the ranking of the 184 pledges.

“Based on our meticulous analysis of the climate pledges, it is naive to expect current government efforts to substantially slow climate change,” says Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Oceanography at Harvard University and a coauthor of the report. “Failing to reduce emissions drastically and rapidly will result in an environmental and economic disaster from human-induced climate change.”

Slightly more than half of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions, the main driver of climate change, comes from four nations — China with 26.8 percent of global GHG emissions, the United States (13.1 percent), India (7 percent) and Russia (4.6 percent).

China and India have both submitted pledges to reduce their emissions intensity relative to GDP by 2030, which are likely to be met, but their emissions will continue to increase in the next decade due to economic growth. The report ranks both of their pledges as insufficient as they will not contribute to reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2030.

The United States (U.S.) has given notice of its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Trump Administration has cut major federal regulations meant to curb emissions. Thus, the U.S. pledge submitted by the Obama Administration to reduce emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025 is in “limbo.” Because of the reversal in federal policy, the report ranks the U.S. pledge as insufficient.

Russia has not even submitted a climate pledge.

Only the European Union (with its 28 Member States), one of the five top GHGs emitters at 9 percent of global GHGs, has taken an aggressive stand against climate change. The EU is expected to cut GHGs emissions by 58 percent below 1990 level by 2030. This exceeds the EU’s commitment of “at least 40 percent of GHG emissions below 1990 level.” The report ranks the EU pledge as sufficient.

The remaining 152 pledges are from nations responsible for 32.5 percent of global GHG emissions. Of that total, 127 countries or almost 70 percent have submitted conditional plans to reduce GHG emissions. The pledges of these nations rely on technical assistance and funding from wealthy nations, estimated at $100 billion annually, for their implementation. Provision of this assistance has been more difficult than was anticipated in 2015. Both the United States and Australia have stopped making contributions.

All countries need to reduce emissions to meet the Paris Agreement targets, although not all countries have equal responsibility because of the principle of differentiated responsibility, historical emissions, current per person emissions and the need to develop. Some countries will require international assistance.

Another indicator that reflects the lack of action to fight climate change: 97 percent of the 184 climate pledges are the same as those initially submitted in 2015-2016 after the Paris Agreement was adopted. Only six countries have reviewed their pledges: 4 countries increased their plan to cut emissions; 2 nations weakened their pledges.

“Even if all climate pledges which are voluntary are fully implemented, they will cover less than half of what is needed to limit the acceleration of climate change in the next decade,” says Dr. Watson.

  1. It doesn't add up... permalink
    November 10, 2019 11:48 am

    The real junk is to pretend that the contribution from the EU is in some way “sufficient”. Without contributions from the largest emitters to make real cuts in emissions, it is just pointless virtue signalling. It’s pointless anyway, given the likely impact.

    Perhaps the EU’s desire for its own army is so that it can enforce emissions reductions? War is of course a big consumer of fossil fuels these days. Maybe the real reason is they feel a need to defend against internal revolution against their stupidities.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 11, 2019 2:00 pm

      Their desire for an army could be that having fomented a civil war in Ukraine they couldn’t go and fight in it. Probably just as well they didn’t given it would have brought them into conflict with Russia.

  2. November 10, 2019 11:55 am

    We need to cut the emissions from Paris.

  3. November 10, 2019 12:28 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate-

  4. Joe Public permalink
    November 10, 2019 1:52 pm

    There were many who lauded China & its INDC – e.g.

    Yet China actually announced it could increase its emissions every year until 2029, and by then no other country/organisation would be in any position to challenge it, if it continued to increase its emissions thereafter.

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      November 10, 2019 3:01 pm

      In any case a ‘peak’ is not necessarily a reduction. It could last for many years.

  5. Robin Guenier permalink
    November 10, 2019 2:56 pm

    ‘not all countries have equal responsibility because of … historical emissions’

    Why? If emissions are to be cut it can only be from where they’re currently emitted.

  6. November 10, 2019 3:24 pm

    Once again they ignore the fact that most so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour, so Paris agreement only tinkers at the margins anyway.

  7. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    November 10, 2019 8:11 pm

    As most will be aware Bjorn Lomborg has shown that even if Paris Agreement commitments were kept, using IPCC models, that by 2100 any effect on the GAT would be imperceptible:

  8. Steve permalink
    November 11, 2019 1:20 pm

    Boris’s political declaration commits the UK to upholding the Paris Agreement. Any deviation and we’re up before the European Court with eco loon judges specially selected.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 11, 2019 1:56 pm

      Should we move on to negotiating a free trade agreement then you can be absolutely certain that all the green BS will be in there to prevent us getting an advantage should we have a government not made up of retards at some point in the future. The Ultra Bexit morons should note that had we taken the sensible option of joining efta and remaining in the EEA, not only would have left the EU already but all the environmental stuff does not apply.

  9. Gamecock permalink
    November 11, 2019 2:59 pm

    ‘Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030’

    If they thought it important, they’d do it NOW.

    ‘Because of the reversal in federal policy, the report ranks the U.S. pledge as insufficient.’

    The U.S. has actually reduced emissions, unlike the rest of the cabal.

    ‘U.S., second top emitter, has reversed key national policies to combat climate change’

    So, it is the policies that are important, not actual emissions. It’s hard to get to global socialist government when the U.S. and the formerly Great Britain refuse to go along.

  10. November 12, 2019 11:29 am

    “Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change”

    Only 75%???
    Try 100%

    Where is the evidence that temperature is responsive to emissions?

    Other than carbon budgets that is

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: