In the wake of Trump announcing that the US will be leaving the Paris Accords, and the international MSM meltdown that followed that announcement, I thought it might be worth looking at the INDCs of each country to see whether Trump is correct in saying that the Paris Accords will achieve next to nothing even if complied with in full, or whether the alarmists are correct in saying that Paris is everything and that Trump is going to destroy the planet. Declaration of interest: I start from the position that Trump is correct. I suspect most alarmists howling in agony about Trump have neither read the Paris documentation nor have looked at or considered the implications of the INDCs.

I acknowledge that I am not the best person to do this, and that others have already done a lot of work here. Robin Guenier has done some fine work, and Paul Homewood has also put up quite a few analyses on his site on this subject. Only today Paul has a piece about Qatar, which was what re-ignited my interest on this topic.

The INDCs can be found at the UN website here:

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

They seem to appear in reverse chronological order, i.e. those received most recently appear first on the UN website. On that basis the first one I looked at is the INDC submission from Uzbekistan (19th April 2017, so not a lot of action over the last 7 weeks or so):

http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Uzbekistan/1/INDC%20Uzbekistan%2018-04-2017_Eng_20170419093154_171926.pdf

The first thing to notice is that all INDC submissions seem to contain the usual genuflections to the great climate religion before making vague and rather meaningless commitments which will see their national CO2 emissions increase by 2030, the date to which the Accords are working. In the case of Uzbekistan, for instance, we rather inevitably read that "Uzbekistan is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change. "

Their commitment is as follows: "In the long-term perspective up to 2030, the Republic of Uzbekistan intends to strengthen measures and actions to struggle against climate change, in order to achieve the following objectives:
Mitigation Objectives
 To decrease specific emissions of greenhouse gases per unit of GDP by 10% by 2030 from level of 2010.
Achievement of the INDC long-term objective envisages support from the international organizations and financial institutions, ensuring access to the advanced energy saving and environmentally sound technologies, resources for climate financing.
Adaptation
Uzbekistan will also continue its efforts for adaptation capacity building to reduce risk of climate change adverse impact on various sectors of economy, social sector and Priaralie (Aral Sea coastal zone)."

It strikes me that a few simple points can be made:

1. There is no commitment. It is about intentions and efforts, not definite hard and fast commitments.

2. It is conditional on the Green Climate Fund making payments - "Achievement of the INDC long-term objective envisages support from the international organizations and financial institutions, ensuring access to the advanced energy saving and environmentally sound technologies, resources for climate financing. "

3. Given points 1 and 2, the actual numbers quoted are irrelevant, since they are conditional and aspirational only. However, at first glance a desire to "decrease specific emissions of greenhouse gases per unit of GDP by 10% by 2030 from level of 2010" sounds quite impressive. The problem is the qualifying words of "per unit of GDP." Earlier in the INDC statement, it is said that "Uzbekistan is the country with developing economy and the stable annual GDP growth rate of over 8%. The country’s population is more than 31 million people. According to the UN prediction, the country’s population will reach 37 million people by 2030. "

In other words, they are simply offering (highly conditionally) to try to reduce 2030 emissions by 10% from the level they would reach if they did nothing about it all. But that 2030 level (less 10%) will still be a considerable increase from where they are now.

I suspect to see a lot more in similar vein. If I can find the time and maintain the enthusiasm, I will try to report on one a day.

Jun 6, 2017 at 9:10 PM | Mark Hodgson

Your reference numbers

1) Agree entirely! Getting politicians to sign up to good intentions without any commitments is how to build a truly international consensus amongst politicians that they are equally self righteous. It is also pointless, meaningless and a waste of money.

2) The Green Climate Fund is a wonderful supply of free money, for self righteous politicians. Unfortunately, the business model seems to have all the financial credibility of Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidgh. Just as Kids Company went bust when the UK Government finally realised how taxpayers money was being wasted, the Green Climate Fund has just lost its only genuine donor.

3) Given points 1) & 2), the Green Climate Fund may have been wound up before you complete your One-a-Day, in which case, why should the likes of Uzbekistan bother striving to try and keep making pointless promises?

If you have a look at the Green Climate Fund's website, you will see that thousands of politicians from around the world were banking on being given US Taxpayer Dollars for boldly making promises that they had no ability or intention of keeping.

Thanks gc. Speaking of the Green Development Fund, I see they're looking for a Talent Management Specialist (am I alone in thinking that as well as being completely pointless, the GDF also creates completely pointless jobs?):

"Position description
The Talent Management Specialist is responsible for all HR initiatives that help to retain and develop the most
talented staff for the Green Climate Fund; with the objective that the staff will perform to their maximum ability and
enable the Fund to achieve its goals.

Duties and responsibilities
Under the overall guidance of the Head of HR, the Talent Management Specialist will be responsible for but not
limited to:
• Develop and carryout effective induction programmes;
Talent Management Specialist
• Manage the performance management function across the Fund, to include performance evaluations,
performance development plans, and performance improvement plans; Train, advise and coach managers
and staff on effective performance management and development, help to resolve any conflicts;
• Identify learning and training needs in the organization, and provide training solutions, implementing,
administering, and/or designing and delivering high-quality programs;
• Support staff in their continuing professional development;
• Help to improve and maintain staff engagement e.g. via staff surveys and follow-up initiatives;
• Work with managers and staff to provide valuable career development opportunities;
• Contribute to organizational development initiatives, for example change management; and
• Carry out any other HR work as required."

Surprise, surprise, they're also looking to recruit LOTS of consultants:

http://www.greenclimate.fund/about-gcf/careers

Anyway, East Timor up next, from 1st March 2017 (I know I'm not dealing with the big hitters yet):

http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Timor-Leste%20(East%20Timor)/1/INDC%20%20TL_Final_Scanned_copy20Feb-2017.compressed.pdf

As usual, the genuflection: "...it is at the frontline of the wrath of climate change and sea level rise" apparently. One wonders such a small, new and poor country is so hung-up about this, other than as a means of leveraging money. By their own account, "Timor-Leste's emissions are less than 0.003% of global emissions...", so why waste a lot of time and money drawing up INDCs which amount to nothing and which, even if they did amount to something, would make no noticeable difference to anything? Surely that time and money could have been better spent in such a poor country. Shame on the UN!

And, really, after all that fuss, what is the point of a document that admits that "Timor Leste has made a conscious decision not to have a target for emission reduction..."? (Good call, TimorLeste, by the way. I suspect they have only gone through with this farce because "We are thankful to UNDP in Timor-Leste for their technical and financial assistance...").

On a positive note, "Timor-Leste's crude petroleum resources are currently processed abroad, but Timor-Leste has expressed interest in developing a domestic processing capacity." Well, you would, with 30%of your population living below the poverty line. Fortunately in that regard, "The development of offshore oil and gas resources has greatly supplemented government revenues."

Well done Timor-Leste for playing the UN at their own game, is all I can say!

As you say not a big hitter, more like a little pinky poke.

Pakistan next (filed with the UN on 27th November 2016): http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Pakistan/1/Pak-INDC.pdf

As usual, it starts with the ritual genuflection:

"Pakistan’s vulnerability to adverse impacts of climate change is well established and widely recognized. Despite Pakistan’s diminutive contribution to global GHG emissions, it is among the top ten most climate-affected countries of the world, as indicated by the Global Climate Risk Index developed by Germanwatch. Moreover, these adverse impacts of climate change are not in the distant future but are imminent. Indeed, these are already occurring as Pakistan has started suffering with ever-increasing frequency and ferocity of climate-induced catastrophes. "

In fairness, Pakistan has had considerable weather-related problems lately, but as a result of man-made climate change? Worse than in the past?

Anyway, at least they are honest about their emissions:

"Based on the latest draft GHG Inventory of Pakistan (2014-15), growth in emissions of different sectors has been fairly consistent. Over the last twenty one years (1994-2015), the overall increase in the emissions has been approximately 123 percent, with energy and agriculture sectors accounting for about 90 percent of total emissions. While the historical trend of increase in emissions has so far been fairly consistent, the envisaged economic growth and increasingly
conducive macro-economic environment are likely to amplify future emissions.
Future projections for the period 2015-30 show a steady increase in emissions due to the ambitious plans of the present government to spark economic activity through large-scale investments in energy, communication and industrial infrastructure. The forecasted economic growth is considered to be historically unprecedented and unmatched. Accordingly, future emissions of the country will increase manifold. Consistent with historical trends, both energy
and agriculture sectors are predicted to remain predominant in GHG emissions, whereas significant increase is also expected in other sectors like industrial processes and waste."

And, as usual, it's all about money:

"Low abatement cost coupled with prospects for climate-resilient investment in energy, infrastructure, industrial processes etc. qualify Pakistan as one of the promising carbon investment markets in the world.
In consideration of projected future emissions and potential for mitigation, Pakistan offers different options as part of its INDC for emission reduction, subject to the availability of Finance, Technology Development & Transfer and Capacity Building by the international community."

Pakistan is definitely not East Timor:

"With current population estimated to be 195.5 million, Pakistan is the sixth-most-populous country of the world. Growing at a rate of 1.89 percent per annum, the population is expected to swell to 229 million by 2025 and approximately 275 million by year 2050."

What of its energy mix?

"The energy mix of the country shows a predominant share of natural gas, which currently stands at about 44 percent of
total commercial energy requirements; the remaining comes from hydropower and fossil fuels with a small portion from renewable sources. Given the prevailing energy crisis and the need to meet the so far depressed but growing demand, the country needs to exploit all its domestic sources of energy including coal, hydro, wind and solar. The use of nuclear and domestic coalbased energy in the power generation sector seems inevitable in the future."

Still, China it isn't either:

"Pakistan’s contribution to the global GHG emissions is miniscule. According to the Global Economy rankings, the share of Pakistan in total global GHG emissions is merely 0.8 percent and it is ranked as 135th in the list of global emitters on a per capita basis. "

Interesting that 0.8% of the world's GHG emissions are described as minuscule. If so, what's the UK's hang-up with this issue?

Given its climate problems, coal will be ditched, yes? Er, no...

"For Pakistan it would be a challenge to achieve its targeted economic growth rate without overcoming the prevailing energy crisis through an aggressive increase in energy supply in the coming years. The government energy policy (2013) states that all domestic sources of energy, including coal, hydro, natural gas, wind and solar will be fully harnessed in bridging the power sector supply shortfall.
The government plans to achieve an optimal mix of coal, gas and hydro potentials. The planned addition to the total installed capacity and prescribed energy mix will recognizably have an impact on the projected emissions of the energy sector. "

And

"Improving the efficiency of planned coal-based power generation could lead to GHG mitigation. This measure is
particularly important in view of plans for developing Pakistan’s coal resources and significantly increasing the fuel’s importance in domestic electricity generation."

Also:

"Though there is no plan at present for carbon sequestration in the country due to uncertainty surrounding implementation potential and associated high costs, yet it would become relevant given the availability of resources"

In other words, that old mantra - "send us money, and we might try to do something."

How does 2030 look compared to 2015? Well, it's difficult to tell, because it's all so complicated:

"Setting 2015 as the base year for quantification of emissions has allowed consideration of the latest economic and industry parameters as well as the government’s targeted growth rates and development goals and objectives. Implications on emissions of aggressive national plans for addressing the prevailing energy crisis and adequately meeting projected energy needs up to 2030 have also been given due consideration.
It needs to be highlighted that the present GHG inventory has been prepared using UNFCCC revised 1996 guidelines, applying the Tier 1 approach (which includes default emission factors). Due to non-availability of detailed data in some sectors and absence of tier 2 and tier 3 approaches, the present estimates may not be considered as precise and highly accurate. Hence, there is a possibility that emissions from certain sub-sectors and sub-sub-sectors may not have
been fully taken into account. Nonetheless, utilization of country/region specific emission factors would have certainly led to higher levels of emissions as compared to the presented estimates."

"Based on the National GHG Inventory for 2014-15, the total GHG emissions of Pakistan add up to 405 MT CO2-equivalent. The inventory quantifies the emissions for five key GHG contributing sectors of the economy, which are energy, agriculture, industrial processes, land use and forestry, and waste. " This is an increase on 181.7 MT CO2-equivalent in 1994.

"While from 1994 to 2015 the emissions increased by about 123 percent, the total emissions are expected to increase by about 300 percent for the projected period (2015-2030)." That's right, by 300% - to 1,603 MT CO2 - equivalent.

Furthermore:

"Given the future economic growth and associated growth in the energy sector, the peaking of emissions in Pakistan is expected to take place much beyond the year 2030. An exponential increase of GHG emissions for many decades is likely to occur before any decrease in emissions can be expected. "

Still, it's all so terrible that if we send them lots of money they might try to do something (unspecified):

"In view of the importance of the objectives of UNFCCC at both the national and global levels, Pakistan is determined to reduce its emissions to the maximum extent possible. However, financial and technical constraints do not permit realization of the full mitigation potential. It is likely that these challenges will continue to feature prominently in future national discourse and would only be effectively addressed with financial grants and technical assistance from the
international community."

And

"Having considered the existing potential for mitigation in the country, Pakistan intends to reduce up to 20% of its 2030 projected GHG emissions subject to availability of international grants to meet the total abatement cost for the indicated 20 percent reduction amounting to about US$ 40 billion at current prices. Pakistan’s adaptation needs range between U$ 7 to U$ 14 billion/annum during this period."

That's UP TO a 20% reduction of a 300% increase - if, but only if, they receive $7-14Bn p.a. in order to help them "achieve" it.

Ah yes, those Paris Accords are certainly saving the planet!

Jun 7, 2017 at 9:05 AM | Mark Hodgson

It is Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks, or perhaps Jim Hacker's Ministry of Administrative Affairs, both having taken inspiration from C. Northcote Parkinson's observations about work and self importance expanding in the Civil Service, to overfill the time available, whilst nothing actually gets done.

Have you found any evidence of the Green Climate Fund having done anything useful at all?

Jun 7, 2017 at 7:53 PM | Mark Hodgson

Interesting that you chose Pakistan. Politics within Pakistan, have not always been stable. Pakistan has not always been regarded as reliable, by those outside Pakistan, and that mistrust has been mutual.

Relations between China and Pakistan have never been better, and the Chinese have invested in Pakistan. I think Pakistan is happy to keep the Global Warming scam going for as long as possible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations

North Korea next (INDCs filed on 7th October 2016). Not exactly representative, I know, but interesting that despite their pariah status, they're still into the Paris Accords and the magic money tree.

Inevitably they have problems with climate change:

"Annual mean temperature in DPR Korea rose by 1.9oC over the 20th century. It is over 3 times compared to the rate of global warming. In the late 21st century, annual mean temperature in DPR Korea is expected to rise by 2.8oC to 4.7oC compared to the average (8.2oC, 1971-2000).
Sea level in DPR Korea by 2100 is expected to rise by 0.67m to 0.89m compared to 2000. Thus coastlines in the East and the West Sea may retreat by 67m to 89m and 670m to 890m over 100 years, respectively."

"With domestic resources, GHG emissions will be reduced by 8.0% by 2030 compared to the Business as Usual scenario".

They don't say what their 2015 emissions are, but they do say this:

"GHG emission projections for 2020: 116.36 million tCO2e
- GHG emission projections for 2030: 187.73 million tCO2e"

An 8% reduction on that is still a major increase. Presumably also there will be a major increase between 2015 and 2020.

But please send us money!

"DPR Korea could achieve the additional contribution equivalent to 32.25% of the GHG emission in the BAU scenario by 2030 if international support is received through international cooperation including the financial support under the Paris Agreement."

Even if they did achieve the extra 32.5% reduction, their emissions would still have increased substantially. And of course none of this is a firm commitment, just aspirational hot air:

"DPR Korea will exert efforts in strengthening national financial and technical capacity to make progress in the implementation of these measures, in order to successfully responding the possible negative impacts of the climate change. "

Jun 8, 2017 at 8:54 AM | Mark Hodgson

Amazing how countries with International Pariah Status, and unable to get conventional international financial support, especially from the USA, can get free money, with no strings attached, from the USA, if it is in the cause of Global Warming. In North Korea's case, it reduces the burden on China.

As North Korea has such a Dictatorial, regressive and aggressive regime already, Climate Scientists should feel at home living there for the rest of their lives.

Trump could offer North Korea $1,000 per US Climate Scientist they take, which in terms of the cost of recycling unwanted and useless rubbish, would represent excellent value for all concerned.

gc, it did occur to me that although giving away climate change money to countries who promise to do very little with it isn't very sensible, it is absolutely ridiculous to give climate change money to North Korea. How on earth do you guarantee that it won't be spent on a nuclear weapons programme?

Sri Lanka next (INDCs re-submitted on 25th April 2016). Apparently, just like all the others, Sri Lanka is "...a country highly vulnerable to climate change impacts...". However "The country’s total GHG emission represents less than 0.1% of global emissions".

Unfortunately they don't tell us what a Business as Usual scenario entails, but:

"INDCs for Mitigation intends to reduce the GHG emissions against Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario by 20% in energy sector (4% unconditionally and 16% conditionally) and by 10% in other sectors (transport, industry, forests and waste) by 3% unconditionally and 7% conditionally by 2030. " So the only commitment is against a Business as Usual scenario, but precious little of that is unconditional - the rest is conditional on being given money. Basically:

"Finance is a crucial factor in achieving the set targets. The Sri Lanka government is willing to contribute its finances to achieve the target but the level of ambition will always be high with supported actions. As a developing nation, the enhanced finance for adaptation and low carbon development will be a necessity to achieve the set intended conditional targets. "

And in any event they have no idea what it will all cost:

"Total cost of implementing the above Adaptation INDCs have not been estimated and the national capacity (unconditional) and external supports (conditional) should be identified in consultation with all the agencies and affiliated institutions to each INDCs. "

And very importantly, note that the INDCs are utterly meaningless anyway:

"Sri Lanka reserves the right to revise its intended national contributions and targets at any point of time and consider its INDCs to be a living document that should be integrated with changed/modified national development goals and targets. "

Basically, without being too rude about it, this is the vaguest document I have yet looked at, and one wonders why they bothered - unless it was in the hope of receiving lots of money from the Green Climate Fund.

Panama next (INDCs submitted on 19th April 2016). Unfortunately their submissions are in Spanish (fair enough) and my Spanish is basic to say the least. However, to their credit I gleaned enough to understand that much of their power generation is via hydro and that they are low GHG emitters both in absolute terms and per capita, and they basically propose to carry on in that vein.

In short, if every set of INDCs looked like this, the Paris Accords might (in their own terms) achieve something. Unfortunately, however, Panama is responsible for only 0.02% of world GHG emissions, and therefore their plans for the future don't make much difference to anything. Shame!

I should have added, for those with better Spanish than me, that Panama's INDCs can be found here:

http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Panama/1/Panama_NDC.pdf

Jun 8, 2017 at 8:15 PM | Mark Hodgson

I expect North Korea has stated that their interest in rocket science is so they can verify Mann's Hockey Stick from partial orbits of the planet. Their interest in longer-ranged partial orbits will enable them to photograph more evidence.

It is about as plausible as Climate Science, and Climate Scientists are desperate for any evidence at all.

Nepal next - INDCs submitted on 11th Feb 2016.

It starts with the usual - apparently " its development agenda is constrained by the fact that it is one of the most vulnerable countries to the adverse impacts of climate change." And "Overall, Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, water-induced disasters and hydro-meteorological extreme events such as droughts, storms, floods, inundation, landslides, debris flow, soil erosion and avalanches. "

Also "Nepal is ranked as the eleventh most earthquake-prone country in the world. It experienced a devastating earthquake of 7.6 magnitudes on 25 April 2015 with around 9,000 casualties and over 22,000 injuries. The destruction was widespread as it ruined houses, heritage sites, schools, health posts, infrastructures (roads, bridges and hydro-electricity plants) and social systems (water supply, agricultural land, trekking routes, and sports facilities). Lives of about
8 million people have been severely impacted by this earthquake demanding unbelievably high cost of reconstruction." Indeed, one might think that this was the highest priority for Nepal?

However, it "is one of the least contributors to the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs)." And "Nepal's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is only around 0.027% of total global emissions." So why bother with INDCs, one wonders?

It becomes clear here: "...the current energy mix of the country shows that most of Nepal’s energy is dependent on biomass followed by fossil fuels. The residential sector consumes most of the energy. Nepal has to diversify its energy mix and energy consumption patterns to more renewable and other economically productive sectors. However, given its current economic situation, Nepal will need technical and financial supports from development partners to provide relevant technologies, and build its capacity to be cleaner and greener while flourishing as one of the top tourism destinations in the world. In view of this, Nepal follows the low-carbon development pathway while promoting climate adaptation and resilience."

And here: "Nepal will make efforts to implement its INDC and contribute to the global efforts of reducing GHGs emissions and helping life and life-support systems to adapt and build resilience to climate change impacts. However, Nepal requires bilateral and multilateral grant support in the following priority areas to meet both qualitative and quantitative targets as mentioned above."

In other words, no firm commitments ("Nepal will make efforts") and they are conditional on funding. Send us money!

Nepal does have its problems, and probably is a country deserving of being sent international development aid. But what a pity they have to go down this road to get it, especially as ""Nepal's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is only around 0.027% of total global emissions." Well done UN (not).

Jun 9, 2017 at 8:34 PM | Mark Hodgson

I would imagine that Wikipedia entries are adjusted to support UN approved conclusions and recommendations. This single paragraph ticks all the right boxes:

"Nepal is a developing nation, ranking 144th on the Human Development Index (HDI) in 2016. The country struggles with the transition from a monarchy to a republic. It also suffers from high levels of hunger and poverty. Despite these challenges, Nepal is making steady progress, with the government declaring its commitment to elevate the nation from least developed country status by 2022.[18][19] Nepal also has a vast potential to generate hydropower for export."

I think the inclusion and wording of the sentence is significant, at the end of the paragraph, stressing how Nepal COULD overcome the poverty caused by Global Warming. They just need other countries to pay for it.

Malaysia next (INDC's filed on 18th January 2016).

Difficult to know what to make of them. Everything hinges on the word "intensity", which isn't defined in their INDCs in this context. Also, for some reason they use 2005 as their base year, rather than 2015, which is the year most other countries use for that purpose. Is it because 2005 as a base is easier than 2015 in some way, or am I just being unreasonably cynical (possible, I confess)? I suspect it's because they already reduced their GHG emissions per "unit" of GDP quite substantially between 2005 and 2015, thus making this a low hurdle to jump. But I don't know, because their INDCs are silent on the issue of GHG emissions per "unit" of GDP in 2005 -v- 2015.

This is their proposal:

"Malaysia intends to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 relative to the emissions intensity of GDP in 2005. This consist of 35% on an unconditional basis and a further 10% is condition upon receipt of climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building from developed countries."

Admirable clarity there. Most of it is unconditional, though it is still not in any way binding ("Malaysia intends" rather than "Malaysia will"). Can anyone help me with the 2 things which give me pause for thought, namely their choice of base year, and their use of "GHG emissions of intensity of GDP" rather than just GHG emissions? Presumably they mean they intend to grow their economy, but to reduce the amount of GHG emissions per "unit" of GDP. If GHG emissions worry you, this is laudable so far as it goes, but still not therefore a commitment to reduce GHG emissions, especially if my suspicion about choice of base year is correct.

Mark Hodgson.

Why 2005? I looked up the Wikipedia entry for Malaysia, and this sentence reveals a clue:

"Malaysia has had one of the best economic records in Asia, with GDP growing an average 6.5 per cent annually from 1957 to 2005."

It does not answer your question, but suggests that something happened in 2005, and the year was chosen deliberately.

Energy intensive manufacturing must produce more GHG per unit of GDP, than, for example, financial services. The UK has out-sourced its manufacturing to China etc, but not Malaysia. Perhaps Malaysian industrial output peaked in 2005, as they could not compete with China either?

Reading other sections in the Wikipedia entry, it is almost as though they were written to support the Free-Money Greenworthiness of Malaysia.

Thanks Gwen -interesting stuff.

If selecting a base year to suit yourself, and offering to reduce "GHG emissions of intensity of GDP" is a crafty trick, then it's one adopted also by Chile (INDCs submitted on 5th January 2016).

They start with the usual:

"Chile is highly vulnerable to the impacts of Climate Change...the 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights the severe impacts faced by the country’s resources and ecosystems, particularly by its fishing, aquaculture, forestry, livestock and farming sectors, water resources, and biodiversity, as well as its temperature and rainfall levels...".

Having adopted a carbon tax, and "Law 20.698, [which] requires that, by 2025, 20% of the energy under supply contracts subject to said law be generated from non-conventional renewable energies" (facts of which they make great play in their INDCs) they then complain that "Furthermore, the current average cost of electricity for Chileans is one of the highest among OECD countries." Funny that...

Its offer is as follows:

"a) Chile is committed to reduce its CO2 emissions per GDP unit by 30% below their 2007 levels by 2030, considering a future economic growth which allows to implement adequate measures to reach this commitment
.
b) In addition, and subject to the grant of international monetary funds, the country is committed to reduce its CO2 emission per GDP unit by 2030 until it reaches a 35% to 45% reduction with respect to the 2007 levels, considering, in turn, a future economic growth which allows to implement adequate measures to achieve this commitment."

So, to summarise, they have increased their own energy costs through "green" policies, but don't see the link, though they are unhappy about it. They have cherry-picked the base line date for their commitments, their commitment is to a reduction of emissions PER GDP UNIT rather than an absolute reduction (in other words, there will be an increase of GHG emissions), and much of it is conditional on international funding.

Mark Hodgson

Global Warmists have developed the concept of moving the goal posts. Traditional techniques involved moving the goal posts further apart. Global Warmists have done that, moved the Penalty Spot closer, and handcuffed the Goal Keeper back in the changing room.

Using complex computer models, and innovative techniques of flexible retrospective and readjustable forecasting and backcasting, has still proved inadequate in Climate Science.

Global Warmists have now developed the Computer Generated Virtual Goalposts. They do not really exist at all, but the net encircles the Penalty Spot, so close, that the slightest thermal expansion of the ball, a single drop of rain, or distortion in the slightest breeze, will cause the goaline to be broken, and a goal achieved.

Your research suggests that INDCs have been inspired and written by those seeking money for nothing, and will get it whatever they do, or don't do.

INDCs wouldso far appear to have been composed to show the country in the most favourable light regarding effort to be world citizens and in the greatest peril from the by products of the past and present activities of evil Western societies. Thus the groundwork is laid for restorative Danegeld. The pattern is a clear shakedown of the West and fits the UN doctrine of transferring wealth from North to South.
I will be interested to learn if there is a common pattern to western country INDCs, perhaps emphasizing how blameworthy we are and measures to be taken to obtain absolution.

Supertroll

I suspect you are correct. I fear it will take me some time to get to the INDCs of western countries, as they probably rushed to submit first, and I'm working backwards in time from those most recently submitted. I'll keep plugging away, and with luck will get there sooner rather than later.

Venezuela submitted its INDCs on 15th May 2015. Sadly my schoolboy Spanish isn't up to a detailed analysis. But the INDCs do contain a graph, and I can read enough there to observe that the proposal is significantly to increase GHG emissions by 2030, whilst claiming to increase them by a bit less than would have happened without the INDCs proposals. Hardly "saving the planet".

St Kitts & Nevis submitted their INDCs on 12th December 2015. Given the insignificance of their GHG emissions, one wonders why they bothered, but then of course the intention in all of this is to obtain funding.

I shouldn't pick on them too much, but their INDCs contain this rather wordy paragraph which sums up what most of the INDCs I have looked at so far also say:

"In order to ensure the effective implementation of the plan proposed above, the local actors must be involved and therefore empowered and prepared to execute the necessary tasks. The preparation process may require, inter alia, technical training, capacity building workshops, expert guidance, and feasibility and technical studies. It is important to highlight the relevance of the institutional capacity, as well as the necessary establishment of institutional coordination
and political support to meet the desired national goals. Furthermore, technical and economically feasibility studies for all levels of implementation (actions, projects, programs, policies), as well as a comprehensive analysis for policy implication would be required. It is also relevant to prepare a sectorial financing plan with specific funding sources and
disbursement planning to implement the necessary policies and measures."

What a monumental waste of time, money and effort has been unleashed by the Paris Accords. So much time, money and effort wasted on producing INDCs that won't see GHG emissions reduced at all globally. Followed up by "technical training, capacity building workshops, expert guidance, and feasibility and technical studies" etc, then no doubt by monitoring assessments, and of course lots more meetings at national and international level. All to achieve - nothing.

FWIW, "...the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis proposes an emissions reduction target of 22% and 35% of St. Kitts and Nevis GHG emissions projected in the business as usual (BAU) scenario for 2025 and 2030 respectively". In other words, they'll seek to reduce their emissions compared to the level their emissions would reach if they took no steps at all, but it's still safe to assume their emissions will increase.

And, as almost always seems to be the case with "developing country" INDCs:

"St. Kitts and Nevis’ iNDC is conditional and based on the availability of financing and technological support. "

Tonga submitted its INDCs on 4th December 2015. As always seems to be the way:

"Climate Change continues to pose irreversible threat to the people of Tonga, its society, livelihoods, and its national environment. The interference to the climate system from human-caused climate change is already affecting Tonga’s development, livelihood of its people and future. The World Risk Report has ranked Tonga as one of the world most at-risk country for natural hazards, and sea level rising."

But "Tonga, like other SIDS, makes a negligible contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, with low per capita emissions of 2.95 tCO2e, and total emissions of 300.54Gg CO2e (2006 data). When land use and forestry is taken into account, Tonga is a net carbon sink, with its forests absorbing substantially more greenhouse gas emissions than is emitted through all other sources. "

The plans seem to me to be vague in terms of their GHG emissions, but then I suppose they can afford to be if the country represents a net "carbon sink" as claimed. This seems to be the nub of it:

"In 2006 electricity generation contributed 40 Gg CO2e as an emissions source. The Tonga Energy Roadmap Business as Usual forecast predicts a 35% increase in diesel consumption for electricity generation from 2006-2020, assuming
continued economic and population growth, increasing electricity access to 100%, and no GHG abatement measures.
A 50% renewable energy contribution in 2020 would equate to a reduction of 9.4 million litres of diesel per annum, or approximately 27 Gg CO2e."

They do seem to be dependent on international funding:

"Tonga does not have any dominant funding source for climate change but instead rely on the range of international
and bilateral sources."

Rwanda filed its INDCs on 2nd December 2015. Like Tonga, it claims to be a net carbon sink:

"Rwanda has one of the lowest GHG emissions per capita in the world estimated at 0.99 tCO2eq/person (2013)15. It should also be noted that the net emissions of Rwanda as per second national communication (emissions net of sequestration) were negative in 2005."

Its plans are, as so many countries' INDCs are, dependent on international funding:

"...the full implementation of this INDC will require predictable, sustainable and reliable support in the form of finance, capacity building and technology transfer. The initial costing of implementing the green growth and climate resilience
strategy indicated that Rwanda will need 24.15 Billion USD in the sector of Water resource management, Agriculture and Energy up to 203016. Costing of the remaining sectors will give the clear indication of financial needs."

Its plans are, however, vague:

"Type of Contribution - Emission reductions from projected emissions resulting from the deviation of BAU [Business as Usual] emissions for the year 2030 based on policies /actions conditional on availability of international support for finance, technology and capacity building."

"Estimated GHG emissions reduction - Estimated impact of policies/actions is underway and will be informed by the Third National Communication Report which will be completed by 2017." [This does not yet seem to have been filed at this stage, almost half-way through 2017].