Equatorial Guinea next (INDC submitted on 21st September 2015). This one is in Spanish, so I'll stick to the essentials, and hope my ability to translate Spanish is up to the job.

Their population is 1,014,999, 70% rural, with an economy greatly dependent on oil and gas.

GHG emissions increased by 35% between 2000 and 2011, compared to a 10% rise between 1990 and 2000. However, their offer seems an absolute one, rather than against a BaU scenario, assuming my Spanish is correct - by 2030 a 20% reduction and by 2050 a 50% reduction against 2010 emission levels. I believe this is a conditional offer, dependent on international finance.

Adaptation costs are $114.5M 2015-2030 and $171.3M 2030-2050.

Mitigation costs 2015-2030 are estimated to be £3.6733 Bn 2015-2030 and $5.9558 2030-2050.

Additional costs are $153M 2015-2030 and $220.2M 2030-2050.

A grand total from 2015 to 2050 of roughly $10.3 Bn. Perhaps not a lot in the scheme of things globally, and it does cover the period to 2050, rather than just to 2030, but with a population of a little over one million, it's coming in at around $10,000 per capita, which is a significant amount of money. Admittedly they do seem to be offering real reductions in GHG emissions, but I bet they won't scale back their oil and gas production!

Comoros next (INDC submitted on 17th September 2015). Unfortunately this one is in French, so again I'll be relatively brief.

They offer an 84% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, so far as I can understand it, against a Business as Usual scenario. The cost of this mitigation offer is around $375 million, and adaptation around $300 million, of which Comoros offers to pay 10%, so they're looking for upwards of $600 million from the international community.

They have a population of around 750,000. As a SIDS state they claim to be particularly vulnerable to climate change (where have I heard that before?). Indeed with an economy dependent on agriculture, and 50% of their population living in the coastal zone, they claim that climate change could cost their economy $836 million by 2050, or 130% of their GDP.

Their GHG emissions are negligible in the context of global totals. 84% is such a large reduction, even against their rapidly-rising emissions, that it does represent a real reduction, though their sequestration levels are falling so rapidly, and their emissions are rising so rapidly, that it is a smaller total decrease from today's levels of emissions than at first blush might appear. In 2000, they were a net carbon sink - no longer.

The cost to the international community works out at about $800 per capita.

Tunisia next (INDC submitted on 16th September 2015). Happily they helpfully provide an English translation.

I think I see some game-playing with numbers here:

"In its contribution, Tunisia proposes reducing its greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors (energy; industrial processes; agriculture, forestry and other land use; waste) in order to lower its carbon intensity by 41 per cent in 2030, relative to the base year 2010. Mitigation efforts will particularly centre on the energy sector, which alone accounts for 75 per cent of the emissions reductions contributing to this decrease in carbon intensity. As part of the energy transition policy advocated by the State, it is estimated that the energy sector will reduce its carbon intensity in 2030 by 46 per cent compared with 2010.
Tunisia, which has already made significant strides towards mitigation in its baseline, is looking to reduce its carbon intensity unconditionally and through its own efforts by 13 per cent compared to 2010, i.e. by around 1/3 of its INDC. To achieve the rest of its objective, i.e. an additional drop in carbon intensity of 28 per cent in 2030 compared to 2010, Tunisia is relying on the support of the international community for funding, capacity building and technology transfer.
The reduction in emissions compared to the baseline scenario would be in the order of 26 million tCO2eq in 2030, and 207 million tCO2eq for the period 2015-2030."

I've seen these games before - discussion of emissions INTENSITY rather than emissions; and our own politicians are good at mentioning a small annual sum and then referring to the much bigger sum that it represents over a number of years. Tunisia here does the same - small annual reductions against the "baseline scenario" (ie Business as Usual) made to look rather more impressive by referring to the total "reduction" over the period 2015-2030.

But one thing they can't disguise is the cost:

"Implementation of the Tunisian contribution towards mitigation requires substantial funds to be mobilized – an estimated 18 billion US dollars – to cover investment needs and finance capacity building programmes.
The national effort required to achieve Tunisia's unconditional contribution is estimated at nearly 10 per cent of the total mitigation investment needs. The national effort exclusively concerns the energy sector, which accounts for the most significant part of the investment needs."

National effort with some weasel words: "estimated" and "nearly 10%". How near? They don't say. So, fair to assume that the international community is being asked to pay well in excess of $16 billion - rather more than the costs of adaptation are added:

"The additional costs of the necessary adaptation measures for these sectors and fields will come to some 2 billion dollars and should be borne completely by the international community as part of the global fight against climate change.
Altogether, the total additional financing required for mitigation and adaptation would be around 20 billion US dollars to fund investment requirements and capacity building."

"The population growth rate has steadily been dropping, reaching 1 per cent per year during the past decade. Tunisia had some 11 million inhabitants in 2014, whereas it had 9.9 million in 2004." That sounds like upwards of $1,500 of international money for every person in Tunisia. What will it achieve in real terms?

They provide a graph which suggests that GHG emissions will much more than double on a BaU scenario, by 2030; that with the unconditional offer they will instead increase by a little more than a doubling; and the conditional offer will see emissions increase by 2030 by around 40% compared to 2015. So, yes, it's better than it would be without foreign money, but we're still talking about at least a 40% increase in emissions, in return for lots of foreign money.

Colombia next (INDC submitted on 7th September 2015). Thankfully, they provide an unofficial translation into English, and I am suitably grateful.

According to the information generated by the Colombian Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies Institute (IDEAM), in the context of the country´s First Biennial Update Report and the Third National Communication on Climate Change, in 2010 the country produced estimated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of 224 Mton of CO2eq, which represents just 0.46% of total global emissions for 2010." I'm not sure "just" is the correct word. They're not totally insignificant emitters of GHGs.

Unconditional target: "The Republic of Colombia commits to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% with respect to the projected Business-as-Usual Scenario (BAU) by 2030."

Conditional target: "Subject to the provision of international support, Colombia could increase its ambition from 20%
reduction with respect to BAU to 30% with respect to BAU by 2030."

BaU would see emissions increase by upwards of 30% between 2015 and 2030 so the unconditional offer would see real-terms emissions increase by around 10% between 2015 and 2030 and the conditional offer would see them remain broadly stable. So, they're not offering to reduce emissions, but it is at least a much better offer than many we have looked at.

So far as I can see, they don't identify the amount of foreign money they seek, so I can't comment on that.

Conclusion - no absolute reductions in emissions here, but it's better than many - even most - of the INDCs on offer.

Dominican Republic next (INDC submitted on 8th August 2015). NB Not to be confused with Dominica (I think there may have been some confusion when I posted on Dominica's INDC). The original INDC is in Spanish, so I am as always grateful for the translation.

"In terms of emissions, the Dominican Republic represents less than 0.1% of global emissions. Per capita emissions are below the average for Latin America and the Caribbean region (4.9 tCO2e). However, the emissions trends of some economic sectors are important, especially transport, energy, manufacturing and construction, waste and agriculture."

They do not seem to make an unconditional offer. Their base year is 2010. Their conditional offer does seem to be to make real reductions in emissions, rather than simply against a BaU scenario:

"Reduction of 25% of base year emissions by 2030. This reduction is conditional upon favorable and predictable support, feasible climate finance mechanisms, and corrections to the failures of existing market mechanisms."

But the flip-side is the significant costs attached to their offer in terms of support sought from the international community, first with regard to adaptation, then with regard to mitigation:

"For the water sector, the incremental cost of adaptation with reference to a baseline scenario for the period 2010-2030, reaches an amount of USD 2,792.5 million (2005 dollars), representing an average of 0.48% of the GDP projected for that period. The tourism sector will have to face the consequences of hydro-meteorological phenomena in the coming years. To combat this, it is estimated that the sector will need incremental financial flows of USD 358.3 million (2005 dollars) for the period 2005-2030.
In terms of mitigation, CCDP’s implementation has an approximate cost of USD 17,000 million (2010 Dollars) in the energy, transport, forestry, tourism, solid waste and cement sectors for the period 2010-2030; to achieve emission reductions in the order of 25 MtCO2e. These costs are associated with the identified measures that have mitigation potential, not with structural measures to modify or promote an enabling environment in these sectors.
The National Strategy to Strengthen Human Resources and Skills to Advance Green, Low Emission and Climate Resilient Development identifies financing needs that exceed USD 1.5 million per year for projects of Higher Education, Technical-Vocational education and specializations."

Some of these costs are expressed in US dollars at 2005 values, others at 2010 values, none at today's values, so the total needs to be rounded up to reflect that fact. So a total of more than $20 billion will be significantly more than that in today's values. They don't tell us their population, but an internet search suggests it's between 10.5 million and 11 million, so they're looking for around $2,000 per capita from the international community.

I'm not sure that $20 billion to reduce less than 0.1% of the world's GHG emissions by around 25% is good value for money, but at least a genuine reduction, however small, is potentially on offer.

Mark Hodgson, I have not visited South Africa, but your comments about how seriously they take Global Warming tend to match the "experiences" I have heard from tourists and those with much longer associations with South Africa and adjacent countries.

Google South Africa and Corruption
Wikipedia even has https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_South_Africa
and one story is fairly lively at the moment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-40664500/south-africa-s-gupta-scandal
complete with a British connection Bell Pottinger

But apart from the fraud and corruption that dates back to the Dutch/British/Rhodes/Apartheid and a PEACEFUL-ish end to White Rule.......

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/South-Africa-The-Next-Hot-Spot-For-Offshore-Oil-Exploration.html
"South Africa’s land is known for its resources such as platinum, gold, diamonds, copper and coal. But its waters may be hiding future giant oil and gas discoveries potentially capable of changing the country’s power generation mix by reducing its use of coal."

http://www.southafricanmi.com/blog-1dec2016.html South Africa understands the effect on its economy of variations in the cost of imported oil.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_South_Africa
"South Africa produces in excess of 255 million tonnes of coal (2011 estimate)] and consumes almost three quarters of that domestically. Around 77% of South Africa's energy needs are directly derived from coal and 92% of coal consumed on the African continent is produced in South Africa."

Somehow, I can't imagine the Continent of Africa coping without South African coal.

Belarus, agreed, a Curate's Egg! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg

From Wikipedia:
"Republic of Belarus (Belarusian: Рэспубліка Беларусь; Russian: Республика Беларусь), formerly known by its Russian name  or  (Russian: Белоруссия), is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe bordered by Russia to the northeast, Ukraine to the south, Poland to the west, and Lithuania and Latvia to the northwest. Its capital and most populous city is Minsk. Over 40% of its 207,600 square kilometres (80,200 sq mi) is forested. Its strongest economic sectors are service industries and manufacturing"

"In the 1990s, however, industrial production plunged due to decreases in imports, investment, and demand for Belarusian products from its trading partners. GDP only began to rise in 1996; the country was the fastest-recovering former Soviet republic in the terms of its economy. In 2006, GDP amounted toUS$83.1 billion in purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars (estimate), or about $8,100 per capita. In 2005, GDP increased by 9.9%; the inflation rate averaged 9.5%."

★ I appreciate most of the following IS NOT UP TO DATE★
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Belarus
"Belarus is a net energy importer. According to IEA, the energy import exceeded the energy use in 2008. Primary energy use in Belarus was 327 TWh or 34 TWh per million persons in 2008."

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Belarus-ENERGY-AND-POWER.html
"Domestic electricity is produced by four thermal plants. Belarus also imports electricity generated by nuclear and hydroelectric plants. In 2000, net electricity generation was 24.6 billion kWh, of which over 95% came from fossil fuels, with the remainder from hydropower and other sources. In the same year, consumption of electricity totaled 26.8 million kWh. Total installed capacity at the beginning of 2001 was 7.5 million kW."

Only a small portion of Belarus's energy requirement is met by local production.

"Belarus has been producing oil since 1964 and had 37 operational fields in 1995. As of 2002 Belarus had oil reserves estimated at 198 million barrels, but there was a lack of foreign investment to fund exploration. About 37,000 barrels of oil were produced per day in 2001, along with a nominal amount of peat and natural gas."

"Peat is found throughout the country and is processed by 37 fuel briquetting plants. Natural gas production in 2002 totaled only 210 million cu m (7.4 billion cu ft). There are two major oil refineries: Mazyr and Navapolatsk, with a combined Although oil consumption has been cut roughly in half since the early 1990s, Belarus was still obliged to import 75% of its oil from Russia as of 2002. In December 2002, Belarus sold its 11% stake in Slavneft, a joint Belarussian-Russian state-run oil company, to Russia."

"Belarus is an important transit route for Russian oil and natural gas exports to Eastern Europe, via pipelines that can carry up to 1,030,000 barrels per day of oil and 22.7 billion cu m (800 billion cu ft) per year of natural gas."

"Roughly half of Russia's net oil exports travel through Belarus, and a trade agreement between the two countries exempts Russian from paying export duties on this oil. In March 1993, Poland and Russia entered into an agreement to build a 2,500-mile natural gas pipeline from Russia's northern Yamal Peninsula, through Belarus and Poland, to Germany. When completed by 2010, the new pipeline will have a capacity of more than 56.6 billion cu m (2 trillion cu ft) per year. To maintain stable supplies of oil and natural gas, Belarus has entered a joint project with Russia, sponsored by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD,) to develop 60 million tons of oil from idle wells in Russia's Tymen region in exchange for guaranteed Russian oil supplies."

Belarus is yet another country that is doing well, but unable to control or dictate the source of its power.

It is quite depressing to read these.

hunter, it is quite depressing to write them! I'm finally closing in on what are arguably the most important ones, e.g. EU, USA (relevant now?), China, Russia, etc. Please with it if you can bear it.

Democratic Republic of the Congo next (INDC submitted on 18th August 2015). Unfortunately this one is only in French, so I can only do my incompetent best with it.

Fortunately they offer a summary at the beginning, so I offer it up first, then I'll try to look at the detail behind it.

Conditional offer 2021-2030, 17% reduction in GHG gases against a 2000 reference year (but so far as my French permits, I believe that to be a reduction against Business as Usual, not an absolute reduction). Total cost $21.622 Bn, divided as to $9,082 Bn for adaptation and $12.54 Bn for mitigation.

They helpfully provide a graph (easier to read than language for those of us relying on schoolboy French), which suggests that between 2015 and 2030 GHG emissions are set to rise by around 50%. Their offered reduction therefore amounts to a real-term increase of around 25% in GHG emissions between 2015 and 2030.

This is in respect of a contribution to global GHG emissions which they (I think a little misleadingly) describe as very low - but at 0.5% or thereabouts, I would say that is not a trivial contribution.

They have an estimated population of around 75 million, so total costs are a little under $3,000 per capita in return for a 25% increase in GHG emissions which already represent 0.5% of humankind's GHG emissions globally.

Australia next (INDC submitted on 11th August 2015).

As I commented on the COP 22 attendees thread, Australia seems to be a "green" paradise, with more "green" NGOs and charities, all actively campaigning, than you could shake a stick at, so I expected a real-terms reduction on offer in their INDC, and they have duly provided it:

"Under a Paris Agreement applicable to all, Australia will implement an economy-wide target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030."

Given such a clear commitment, I don't like to be churlish, but I note the words "Under a Paris Agreement applicable to all..." and wonder if that gives them an opt-out if they want to take it. Whether it does or it doesn't, a following paragraph makes it clear that the offer is actually highly equivocal, despite it being expressed as unconditional:

"Australia’s target is unconditional based on assumptions set out in the attachment. We will implement the 28 per cent target should circumstances allow, taking into account opportunities to reduce emissions and factors such as the costs of technology. Australia reserves the right to adjust our target and its parameters before it is finalised under a new
global agreement should the rules and other underpinning arrangements of the agreement differ in a way that materially impacts the definition of our target." Again, those final words seem to give them an opt-out now that the USA has left the Paris Accords.

And that's really all there is to say. Their INDC is very short, running to only 3 pages, but is clear and simple. An absolute reduction in GHG emissions. They are not seeking finance from anyone else. And therefore in terms of what the Paris Accords are supposed to achieve, they get a big tick from me...subject only to the fact that they have given themselves enough wriggle room not to deliver if they don't feel like it.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia next (INDC submitted on 5th August 2015).

Their offer is:

"To reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels combustion for 30%, that is, for 36% at a higher level of ambition, by 2030 compared to the business as usual (BAU) scenario. The CO2 emissions from fossil fuels combustion cover almost 80% of the total GHG emissions in the country with a dominant share of the following sectors: energy supply, buildings and transport."

I suppose, then, that at 30% x 80% and 36% x 80%, that's an offer of a 24% reduction and a higher level of ambition offer of c 29%.

Reading a little further makes it clear that the offer of a reduction is against a Business as Usual scenario.

"According to the BAU scenario (WOM), CO2 emissions by 2030 will almost double (from about 9 000 kt they will increase to about 18 000 kt). With the 17 measures included in the mitigation scenario (WЕМ), in 2030 a reduction of 30% compared to the BAU scenario can be achieved. Further on, with the higher ambition mitigation scenario (WАМ), which includes improved and additional measures, the CO2 emission reduction compared to the BAU scenario in 2030 shall be 36%. In all scenarios the CO2 emissions shell have a growing trend, peaking between 2030 and 2032. In 2030, the CO2 emissions shall increase for 31% under WEM scenario, that is, for 20% under WAM scenario, compared to the CO2 emissions in 1990."

As a Former Yugoslav Republic, they also seem to be playing the former SSR 1990 baseline game, though in their case it doesn't much matter, since current emissions are not much below the 1990 level. They candidly admit that BaU will see emissions rise by 87% between 1990 and 2030, and therefore their offers will see real-terms emissions increases of 31% or 20% in the case of their more ambitious (and conditional) target.

In the scheme of things (though these numbers do add up) the costs of their offer are modest:

"In the period 2015-2030, the additional investments (relative to BAU scenario) needed for realization of the mitigation scenario are estimated at 4.2 billion Euros, while for realization of the higher ambition mitigation scenario they are estimated at 4.5 billion Euros...".

They don't tell us what their population is, but an internet search suggests it is a little over 2 million, so they're seeking a little over $2,000 per capita in return for which they will increase their emissions by 31% or 20%, depending on whether or not they achieve their higher ambition target.

Monaco next (INDC submitted on 4th August 2015).

Their offer is a real and substantial (and continuing) one:

"Having signed up to Annex 1 of the Convention with a commitment to reduce emissions by 8% compared with 1990 during the first period of the Kyoto Protocol, the Principality has fulfilled its obligations, reducing emissions by 13.18% compared with 1990."

"With a view to the adoption of a legally binding agreement in Paris in December 2015, the Principality of Monaco wishes to contribute to the joint effort by adopting a target to reduce its emissions by 50% by 2030, compared with the reference year of 1990."

There really is nothing to criticise here. It's just a shame they're so small and insignificant in terms of global emissions:

"The Principality of Monaco is a city state of 203 hectares. Its diversified economy is based primarily on services, construction, tourism and the banking sector. It is an enclave of France, located 10 kilometres from the Italian border."

"The resident population is 37,000, while a further 40,000 people cross the border every day to work in the Principality."

They don't seek any finance either (it would be a bit of a cheek I suppose if such a wealthy state did), though there is one slight catch:

"The Principality of Monaco intends to achieve its emissions reduction target by implementing domestic measures. It does not, however, exclude the use of mechanisms for the international transfer of reduction units in the event that domestic emissions reductions prove insufficient at the end of the commitment period."

In fairness, even then they say:

"To this end, the Principality of Monaco supports the adoption of regulations which will guarantee the real, additional, permanent and verifiable nature of net emissions reductions or emissions avoided at the source of transferable units. The country is committed to using only units which offer this type of guarantee.
The Principality of Monaco is, in addition, in favour of limited use of international mechanisms to transfer units to achieve the Parties’ targets."

Kenya next (INDC submitted on 24th July 2015).

It starts with the usual genuflection to climate change, and the supposed problems faced by Kenya as a result:

"Kenya, like other countries in the region, is bearing the brunt of climate change impacts and the associated socio-economic losses. The situation is exacerbated by the high dependence on climate sensitive natural resources."

"Climate hazards have caused considerable losses across the country’s different sectors over the years. The main climate hazards include droughts and floods which cause economic losses estimated at 3% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."

Are "climate hazards" the same as Anthropogenic Global Warming? I see a tendency in many of the INDCs to assume, unquestioningly, that bad weather is the same as man-made climate change. But maybe that's just part of the process of climate change monopoly, and something you have to say to unlock "climate funding." Also, who came up with the estimate of 3% of GDP? It's stated as a fact (at least so far as an estimate can be a fact) but no reference is provided.

"Kenya’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are relatively low, standing at 73 MtCO2eq in 2010, out of which 75% are from the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and agriculture sectors. This may be explained by the reliance on wood fuel by a large proportion of the population coupled with the increasing demand for agricultural land and urban development. The other significant emissions are from the energy and transport sectors, with the waste and industrial processes contributing negligible amounts." And "Kenya’s historical contribution is low, at 0.1% of the total global emissions, while the per capita emissions are less than 1.26 MtCO2eq compared to the global average of 7.58
MtCO2eq."

A picture by now familiar to us from the INDCs of many African states. So, what's on offer?

"Kenya seeks to undertake an ambitious mitigation contribution towards the 2015 Agreement. Kenya therefore seeks to abate its GHG emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to the BAU scenario of 143 MtCO2eq; and in line with its sustainable development agenda. This is also subject to international support in the form of finance, investment, technology
development and transfer, and capacity building."

BaU therefore amounts to an almost doubling of GHG emissions, against which they offer, subject to international finance, a reduction of 30%, or in real terms, around a 50% increase. Even then, there may be some smoke and mirrors:

"Kenya does not rule out the use of international market-based mechanisms in line with agreed accounting rules."

And more smoke and mirrors, even regarding what BaU means:

"Business-as-usual (BAU) emissions are estimated to be 143 MtCO2eq) by 2030. This excludes future exploitation in the
extractive sector."

And of course they need money, as they have all sorts of problems (which indeed they do):

"The country’s capability to implement this contribution is also subject to limitations; with poverty alleviation and sustainable economic development being the key national objectives. Increasing the per-capita GDP growth equitably above the current levels of 4.1% is therefore a priority."

"Kenya’s contribution will be implemented with both domestic and international support. It is estimated that over USD 40 billion is required for mitigation and adaptation actions across sectors up to 2030. Kenya will require international support in form of finance, investment, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building to fully realize her
intended contribution. Further analysis will be necessary to refine the required investment cost and determine the domestic support."

They don't tell us what their population is, but an internet search suggests it is pushing up towards 50 million, so they're looking for around $800 per capita to implement their INDC. Less than many countries, but $40 Bn on top of all the other amounts we've looked at is starting to add up to a chunky sum. And in Kenya's case the return on that investment is a 50% increase in GHG emissions.

Republic of the Marshall Islands ("RMI") next (INDC submitted on 21st July 2015).

A real offer, not just on a Business as Usual scenario:

"RMI commits to a quantified economy-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 32% below 2010 levels by 2025.
RMI communicates, as an indicative target, its intention to reduce its emissions of GHGs to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030."

"This will require a significant improvement in energy efficiency and uptake of renewables, in particular solar and biofuels, as well as transformational technology, such as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)."

It's just a shame that "RMI’s emissions are negligible in the global context (<0.00001% of global emissions)."

It's hardly surprising that they're fully signed-up:

"The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) is a Small Island Developing State and home to nearly 70,000 people, scattered across 24 low-lying coral atolls in the North Pacific. With an average elevation of 2 metres, RMI is uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

And of course they're a very poor country, so it's also a useful means of extracting international finance:

"Since its independence, RMI has been heavily reliant on external assistance, with grants averaging 60% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). International support will remain important as RMI fulfils its National Strategic Development Plan: Vision 2018 (NSP). The NSP provides a general framework for sustainable development, and contains linkages to
climate change and disaster risk management through its goal of environmental sustainability."

Perhaps this has as much to do with their plans as any fears of climate change:

"Like other island nations in the Pacific, RMI suffers from high and volatile fuel prices, while lacking any known fossil fuel reserves of its own.
Following a major fuel price spike in July 2008, the RMI Government declared a state of economic emergency. This quickly drew national attention to the need to reduce the reliance on imported fossil fuels, and to scale-up renewable energy as a replacement. Prior to 2008, the emphasis had been mainly on small-scale solar for the households of the outer islands. However, since 2008, there has been a rapid expansion of solar investment to add renewable energy generation to the existing diesel-powered grids on the urban islands. This, along with the introduction of supply-side efficiency measures by the Marshalls Energy Company (MEC) and demand-side load reductions, has led to a recent decline in fuel oil usage for electricity generation."

They mention it again, so it's clearly a crucial issue for them:

"The rapid development of energy–intensive economic activities intensified RMI’s dependence on imported petroleum products, particularly in the period 2000 to 2010. The high cost of these products remains a fundamental obstacle to improving standards of living and business profitability in the country. The RMI Government is currently supported by
donors and development partners to mitigate impacts of high oil prices at policy level, focused on increasing energy efficiency, minimizing the costs of imported fuels, and investing in renewable energy sources such as solar, biofuel and ocean energy."

They don't tell us how much they want, but they do want more money:

"Specifically, international support is critical to enable RMI to implement the actions enshrined in its National Energy Policy, Climate Change Policy, Joint National Action Plan, National Strategic Plan and other sectoral policies and plans. It is also important to note that RMI has made substantial progress in implementing its 2009 National Energy Plan (up
to 2020), but important gaps remain, particularly in the area of private investment. RMI will need international support for is efforts to transition towards a low-emissions energy sector through greater use of renewables such as solar, biofuels and wind, and potential use of transformational technology, such as OTEC.
Finally, RMI will need substantial assistance to meet its adaptation objectives outlined in the prior section. As a highly vulnerable and low-lying island nation with no major points of elevation above 2 metres, RMI already experiences frequent and serious climate impacts, as well as natural hazard events. These impacts will continue to pose serious challenges across the full spectrum of RMI’s development prospects and priorities."

Japan next (INDC submitted on 17th July 2015.

As might be expected from an advanced, industrialised economy, they do offer a real-terms reduction in GHG emissions:

"Japan’s INDC towards post-2020 GHG emission reductions is at the level of a reduction of 26.0% by fiscal year (FY) 2030 compared to FY 2013 (25.4% reduction compared to FY 2005) (approximately 1.042 billion t-CO2 eq. as 2030 emissions), ensuring consistency with its energy mix, set as a feasible reduction target by bottom-up calculation with concrete policies, measures and individual technologies taking into adequate consideration, inter alia, technological and cost constraints, and set based on the amount of domestic emission reductions and removals assumed to be obtained."

It sounds good, but under the heading "assumptions and methodologies" there is this:

"The Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) is not included as a basis of the bottom-up calculation of Japan’s emission reduction target, but the amount of emission reductions and removals acquired by Japan under the JCM will be appropriately counted as Japan’s reduction."

I freely admit I don't know what exactly this means,but it sounds a little suspicious, and suggests, to me at least (though I may easily be wrong), that there may be some smoke and mirrors regarding their headline reduction figures. I could be completely wrong, but I can't help suspecting that Japan sees a business opportunity here, and is in addition possibly counting reductions abroad, based on dissemination of its technology, as part of its INDC. I just don't know, but this section of Japan's INDC is worth studying:

"Japan establishes and implements the JCM in order both to appropriately evaluate contributions from Japan to GHG emission reductions or removals in a quantitative manner achieved through the diffusion of low carbon technologies, products, systems, services, and infrastructure as well as implementation of mitigation actions in developing countries, and to use them to achieve Japan’s emission reduction target. Apart from contributions achieved through private-sector
based projects, accumulated emission reductions or removals by FY 2030 through governmental JCM programs to be undertaken within the government's annual budget are estimated to be ranging from 50 to 100 million t-CO2. As part of international contributions other than the JCM, worldwide emission reduction potential in FY 2030 through the diffusion of leading technologies by Japanese industries’ actions is estimated to be at least 1 billion t-CO2.
Japan will also actively contribute internationally towards, inter alia, human resource development and promotion of development and diffusion of technologies relating to emission reductions in developing countries."

Subject only to my cynical reservations (which may be ill-founded), this one is a tick and pass in terms of trying to achieve actual reductions, which is what one assumes the Paris Accords are really about.

Singapore next (INDC submitted on 3rd July 2015).

As a relatively advanced and wealthy economy, one might have expected real reductions in GHG emissions by Singapore, but if so, disappointment awaits:

"In accordance with Decisions 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20, Singapore communicates that it intends to reduce its Emissions Intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilise its emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030."

Fine-sounding words that try to disguise the fact that their GHG emissions are to continue growing until 2030. They have their excuses ready:

"Singapore’s National Circumstances and Challenges. Singapore currently accounts for around 0.11% of global emissions. Its mitigation contributions must be viewed within the context of its national circumstances, limited access to renewable energy, and early actions. As a low lying island state of 716 km² with no natural resources, Singapore has to accommodate not only housing and commercial centres, but also power plants, reservoirs, air/seaports and industries within city boundaries. Singapore has one of the highest population densities in the world (7,540 persons per km2).
Singapore’s urban density and limited land area, relatively flat land, low wind speeds and lack of geothermal resources present serious difficulties in pursuing alternative energy options such as nuclear, hydro-electric, wind or geothermal power. Harnessing solar energy in a significant way is a challenge due to competing uses for limited land. These serious difficulties which severely limit the use of alternative energy sources mean that Singapore is dependent on fossil fuels. Such circumstances are recognised in Article 4.10 of the UNFCCC.
Singapore’s Efforts. While Singapore is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, given its severe limitations on using alternative energy, Singapore had made early policy choices to reduce its GHG footprint by switching from fuel oil to natural gas, the cleanest form of fossil fuel, for electricity generation, even though it meant higher cost. Today, over 90% of electricity is generated from natural gas. Singapore prices energy at market cost, without any subsidy, to reflect resource scarcity and promote judicious usage. On top of this, and despite the challenges, the government is significantly increasing the deployment of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems."

And again, another attempt to put a positive gloss on things:

"Singapore had in 2009 pledged unconditionally to reduce emissions to 7% to 11% below its business-as-usual (BAU) level by 2020. Contingent on the conclusion of a universal legally binding agreement in 2015, Singapore will further reduce emissions to BAU-16% by 2020. As a result of continued mitigation efforts, Singapore’s emissions are expected to grow at a lower rate compared to GDP growth for 2005-2020. For the 2021-2030 period, Singapore intends to build on its previous mitigation efforts to stabilise its emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. In 2012, Singapore’s Emissions Intensity (EI) ranked favourably at 113 out of 140 countries despite Singapore’s limitations in using alternative energy. Singapore’s EI is projected to decline further by around 2.5% annually from 2021-2030, compared to the already planned reduction of around 1.5% annually from 2005-2020."

They don't give us the information we need to work out how much their emissions are due to rise by 2030, but it is clear that they will rise. And even with all the spin and gloss in the INDC, there is still a sting in the tail:

"Singapore intends to achieve the mitigation objectives under its INDC through domestic efforts, but will continue to study the potential of international market mechanisms." So, potentially some smoke and mirrors to add to the mix.

Consulted Wikki to determine if it truly was the Chincha islands that I visited (rather than some other islands along the same coast) and came across the entry for the Chincha Islands War. If you haven't read it Gwen I recommend it - talk about colonial overreach.

Jul 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM | Supertroll
Thank you for that! I thought Spain had given up on over exerting themselves in South America by then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War

I was aware that the first "Iron Clad" to circumnavigate the Globe didn't set out to achieve that record. It does reiterate the point that steampower did rely on access to coal bunkers.
1860ish ties in with the unification of "Germany" and separately "Italy" in Europe. Britain launched HMS Warrior in response to the French "Gloire"

Republic of Korea (South Korea) next (INDC submitted on 30th June 2015).

"Korea accounts for approximately 1.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions (including LULUCF, according to the WRI CAIT 3.0), but has set a fair and ambitious target to the extent possible. Korea will make continued efforts to implement the mitigation target."

So it's a fairly major contributor to global GHG emissions, and is arguably similarly placed to a country like Japan - both geographically, and in terms of its development and wealth. One might therefore have expected an INDC like Japan's, but instead it's more like Singapore's.

"Korea will make continued efforts to implement the mitigation target." Not exactly a hugely enthusiastic and binding commitment. The whole INDC runs to less than 4 pages. The commitment itself is not an absolute one, but is one based on a reduction only against a Business as Usual scenario:

"Korea plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37% from the business-as-usual (BAU, 850.6 MtCO2eq) level by 2030 across all economic sectors." This might or might not amount to a real-terms reduction - the INDC simply fails to provide us with enough information to know. We do know (because they do tell us) that GHG emissions are projected to increase by around 10% on a BaU basis between 2020 and 2030. In fairness, therefore, maybe the offer is of a real-terms reduction, but if so, why be so coy about it?

And I'm not sure how significant this qualification is:

"Sectors - Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture and waste (A decision on whether to include land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) will be made at a later stage.)"

"Land Sector - In assessment of mitigation performance, a decision will be made at a later stage on whether to include greenhouse gas emissions and sinks of the land sector as well as the method for doing so."

And then maybe there are some smoke and mirrors:

"Korea will partly use carbon credits from international market mechanisms to achieve its 2030 mitigation target, in accordance with relevant rules and standards."

And then there are the excuses:

"Korea’s mitigation potential is limited due to its industrial structure with a large share of manufacturing (32% as of 2012) and the high energy efficiency of major industries. Given the decreased level of public acceptance following the Fukushima accident, there are now limits to the extent that Korea can make use of nuclear energy, one of the major mitigation measures available to it."

I just can't help feeling that although they've signed up and have submitted INDCs, they're not fully engaged with the Paris Accords. But then again, given the identity and behaviour of their northern neighbour, maybe they have more important things than climate change to worry about...

And now for a big one - China (INDC submitted on 30th June 2015).

An early flavour of where they are coming from doesn't provide much confidence:

"As a developing country with a population of more than 1.3 billion, China is among those countries that are most severely affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. China is currently in the process of rapid industrialization and urbanization, confronting with multiple challenges including economic development, poverty eradication, improvement of living standards, environmental protection and combating climate change."

That's the background; then there are the fluffy words:

"To act on climate change in terms of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing climate resilience, is not only
driven by China’s domestic needs for sustainable development in ensuring its economic security, energy security, ecological security, food security as well as the safety of people’s life and property and to achieve sustainable development, but also driven by its sense of responsibility to fully engage in global governance, to forge a community of shared destiny for humankind and to promote common development for all human beings."

Then they tell us what steps they have been taking to date:

"By 2014 the following has been achieved:
• Carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP is 33.8% lower than the 2005 level;
• The share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption is 11.2%;
• The forested area and forest stock volume are increased respectively by 21.6 million hectares and 2.188 billion cubic meters compared to the 2005 levels;
• The installed capacity of hydro power is 300 gigawatts (2.57 times of that for 2005);
• The installed capacity of on-grid wind power is 95.81 gigawatts (90 times of that for 2005);
• The installed capacity of solar power is 28.05 gigawatts (400 times of that for 2005); and
• The installed capacity of nuclear power is 19.88 gigawatts (2.9 times of that for 2005)."

The wind and solar power figures sound impressive, but they don't tell us what a low base they started from in 2005, though we can work it out - wind power of around 1 gigawatt, and solar power a tiny fraction of that). They also don't tell us what their 2014 requirements for energy are or how much is provided by fossil fuels, or how much fossil fuel use increased between 2005 and 2014, so that we can put these 2014 figures into context.

It is against that background of partial information, that they tell us what their offer is:

"Based on its national circumstances, development stage, sustainable development strategy and international responsibility, China has nationally determined its actions by 2030 as follows:
• To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;
• To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level;
• To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20%; and
• To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the 2005 level.

In other words, and most crucially, the biggest GHG emitter on the planet (not that their INDC alludes to that fact) will continue increasing GHG emissions until 2030, by which date fossil fuels will still account for 80% of primary energy consumption (by the way, what is non-primary energy consumption, and is it fossil-fuel based?).

And if for one moment you were under the illusion that they intend to reduce use of fossil fuels, this section will disabuse you:

"Building Low-Carbon Energy System

• To control total coal consumption;
• To enhance the clean use of coal;
• To increase the share of concentrated and highly-efficient electricity generation from coal;
• To lower coal consumption of electricity generation of newly built coal-fired power plants to around 300 grams coal equivalent per kilowatt-hour;
• To expand the use of natural gas: by 2020, achieving more than 10% share of natural gas consumption in the primary energy consumption and making efforts to reach 30 billion cubic meters of coal-bed methane production;
• To proactively promote the development of hydro power, on the premise of ecological and environmental protection and inhabitant resettlement;
• To develop nuclear power in a safe and efficient manner;
• To scale up the development of wind power;
• To accelerate the development of solar power;
• To proactively develop geothermal energy, bio-energy and maritime energy;
• To achieve the installed capacity of wind power reaching 200 gigawatts, the installed capacity of solar power reaching around 100 gigawatts and the utilization of thermal energy reaching 50 million tons coal equivalent by 2020;
• To enhance the recovery and utilization of vent gas and oilfield-associated gas; and
• To scale up distributed energy and strengthen the construction of smart grid."

I think the key issues (apart from the open admission that GHG emissions will increase until 2030) are the lack of transparency regarding the scale of their emissions currently, the amount by which they will increase, and the amount of current energy generation from fossil fuels, combined with the amount (in real terms as a hard figure) by which they will increase by 2030 (even if the proportion of a greater amount of energy generated by fossil fuels might decrease slightly). I'm struggling to find the 2017 figure, but the US EPA website says this:

"In 2014, the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters were China, the United States, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan. These data include CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, as well as cement manufacturing and gas flaring. Together, these sources represent a large proportion of total global CO2 emissions" The proportions they offer are:

China - 30%

USA - 15%

EU - 9%

India - 7%

Russian Federation - 5%

We have seen that India will increase their emissions by 2030, and now we see the same for China (who disingenuously don't tell us by how much they will increase).

On a related subject, there is a strong argument that the developed world, while claiming to reduce its own GHG emissions, is simply outsourcing them to China. There is an interesting piece at the Carbon Brief website, which contains this:

"China is the world’s manufacturing hub. One reason for the increase in emissions is that China is making more and more of the stuff the rest of the world wants to buy.

Emissions in places like the EU are falling – partly because it is manufacturing less, and importing more. So who should be responsible for the emissions associated with an ipod made in China and used in the UK?

The simplest way of measuring a country’s emissions is to look at how much pollution is released within its borders, called territorial emissions.

It’s also possible to look at only the emissions associated with products that actually stay in China. These are termed consumption emissions, and this accounting lowers the country’s carbon footprint a bit.

China emitted about 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide making products it exported elsewhere in 2012, about 16 per cent of its total. Arguably, those might be emissions the rest of the world is responsible for."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-of-chinas-carbon-dioxide-emissions-is-the-rest-of-the-world-responsible-for

Food for thought - none of these issues are dealt with by the Paris Accords, of course.

Iceland next (INDC submitted on 30th June 2015).

The INDC only runs to a little over 2 pages, for understandable reasons:

"Iceland‘s electricity production and heating comes almost 100% from renewable energy, with minimal emissions. This was mostly achieved before 1990. This means that Iceland must look to other sectors for mitigation options, including transport, agriculture, fisheries, industrial processes, waste and LULUCF. Iceland considers the utilization of its renewable energy sources to have global benefits from a climate change mitigation perspective."

Nevertheless they still commit to real-terms reductions - sort of:

"Iceland aims to be part of a collective delivery by European countries to reach a target of 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. A precise commitment for Iceland within such collective delivery has yet to be determined, and is dependent on an agreement with the European Union and its Member States and possibly other countries. Under such an arrangement, Iceland will ensure fullfillment of its fair share of the collective delivery of the 40% target by: a) continuing participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and b) determining a target
for emissions outside the EU-ETS by the same methodology as applied to EU Member States. In the event that an agreement on collective delivery is not reached, Iceland will determine a national target by other methods and communicate it to the UNFCCC."

Since their precise commitment is yet to be determined, and since it is dependent on the response of other countries, and since their emissions are already very low, thanks to the benefits they enjoy from geo-thermal energy sources, there isn't really much more to be said.

Serbia next (INDC submitted on 30th June 2015).

Like Iceland, but for different reasons, there isn't too much to be said. Their INDC also runs to just over 2 pages, and around half of that is spent blaming weather (climate?) on many of their problems, and putting costs against weather events. Their offer also plays the ex-SSR game of using 1990 as a base year, before their economy and therefore emissions levels collapsed. The offer is a 9.8% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 against 1990 levels. This almost certainly involves a significant increase in GHG emissions in absolute terms, but since they don't provide the information for us to know, any analysis has to stop there.

Ethiopia next (INDC submitted on 10th June 2015).

"Ethiopia intends to limit its net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2030 to 145 Mt CO2e or lower. This would constitute a 255 MtCO2e reduction from the projected ‘business-as-usual’ (BAU) emissions in 2030 or a 64% reduction from the BAU scenario in 2030."

This is actually quite impressive. If actually achieved, emissions levels would be fractionally lower in 2030 than in 2010. The only fly in the ointment (apart from whether their plans can actually be achieved) is the cost - estimated at $150 billion. Their INDC doesn't tell us how many people live in Ethiopia, but a quick internet search suggests somewhere between 100 million and 105 million. So, at international finance of around $1,500 per capita, their "ask" isn't as big as some countries, but $150 billion is an awful lot of money to leave the GHG emissions of a small emitter broadly unchanged.

Georgia is another nation caught between Ottoman and Russian influences that ended up as part of the USSR following World War 1.

That was all supposed to have changed with the disintegration of the USSR.

The Wikipedia entry for Georgia does contain intriguing statements:

"For much of the 20th century, Georgia's economy was within the Soviet model of command economy. Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, Georgia embarked on a major structural reform designed to transition to a free market economy. As with all other post-Soviet states, Georgia faced a severe economic collapse."

"The country became embroiled in a bitter civil war, which lasted until nearly 1995.Eduard Shevardnadze (Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1985 to 1991) returned to Georgia in 1992 and joined the leaders of the coup — Tengiz Kitovani and Jaba Ioseliani — to head a triumvirate called "The State Council".

"Simmering disputes within two regions of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, between local separatists and the majority Georgian populations, erupted into widespread inter-ethnic violence and wars. President of France Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated a ceasefire agreement on 12 August 2008."

"On 17 August, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russian forces would begin to pull out of Georgia the following day. Russia recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as separate republics on 26 August. In response to Russia's recognition, the Georgian government severed diplomatic relations with Russia"

"The growing U.S. and European Union influence in Georgia, notably through proposed EU and NATO membership, the U.S. Train and Equip military assistance program, and the construction of the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline have frequently strained Tbilisi's relations with Moscow."

Georgia has not had a happy divorce from Russia, and the EU and US have both been offering a new relationship. But Georgia wants a dowry, and Russia wants custody of the assets:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/20/russian-expansion-georgia-south-ossetia
Russian expansion: 'I went to bed in Georgia – and woke up in South Ossetia'
"A slow-motion plan to absorb territory has left Georgians cut off in a foreign land, or exiled from their homes. But, all the while, pro-Kremlin voices are gaining traction in Tbilisi "

All Georgia wants is reliable power, that they can trust.

"Since coming to power Saakashvili administration accomplished a series of reforms aimed at improving tax collection. Among other things a flat income tax was introduced in 2004. As a result, budget revenues have increased fourfold and a once large budget deficit has turned into surplus"

Seychelles
For an idyllic group of islands, the Seychelles have a "colourful" past. The Wikipedia entry is interesting up until Independence. Thereafter, the succession of coups, plots and failed plots becomes a tragic comedy.

Remember Mad Mike Hoare? http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/famous-soldiers-mad-mike-hoare/

Without oil to power everything on the islands, and to get to-and-from the islands, the Seychelles are stuffed.

Bangladesh

Wilipedia contains this under Geography:
"The geography of Bangladesh is divided between three regions. Most of the country is dominated by the fertile Ganges-Brahmaputra delta; the northwest and central parts of the country are formed by the Madhupur and the Barind plateaus. The northeast and southeast are home to evergreen hill ranges. The Ganges delta is formed by the confluence of the Ganges (local name Padma or Pôdda), Brahmaputra (Jamuna orJomuna), and Meghna rivers and their respective tributaries. The Ganges unites with the Jamuna (main channel of the Brahmaputra) and later joins the Meghna, finally flowing into the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh has 57 trans-boundary rivers, making the resolution of water issues to be politically complicated, in most cases, as the country is a lower riparian state to India."

"Bangladesh is predominately rich fertile flat land. Most parts of it is less than 12 m (39.4 ft) above sea level, and it is estimated that about 10% of its land would be flooded if the sea level were to rise by 1 m (3.28 ft).[84] 17% of the country is covered by forests and 12% is covered by hill systems. The country's haor wetlands are of significance to global environmental science."

"As part of British India, the region was influenced by the Bengali renaissance and played an important role in anti-colonial movements. The Partition of British India made East Bengal a part of the Dominion of Pakistan; and was renamed as East Pakistan. The region witnessed the Bengali Language Movement in 1952 and the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. After independence, a parliamentary republic was established. A presidential government was in place between 1975 and 1990, followed by a return to parliamentary democracy. The country continues to face the challenges of poverty, education, healthcare and corruption."

Bangladesh has always been prone to flooding, from a surplus of fresh water, that brings with it fresh nutrients for the soil. This natural fertility has been passed on to the population.

So far, sea levels have not risen at a faster rate. Bangladesh is not going to sacrifice agricultural land. Dredging fresh water channels improves drainage and provides fertile material with which to raise local landlevels, but this cannot increase the availability of agricultural land to feed the increasing population.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Bangladesh#
"As of 2011, 79 natural gas wells are present in the 23 operational gas fields which produce over 2000 millions of cubic feet of gas per day (MMCFD). It is well short of over 2500 MMCFD that is demanded, a number which is growing by around 7% each year."

"In fact, more than three-quarters of the nation’s commercial energy demand is being met by natural gas
Overall, the country's generation plants have been unable to meet system demand over the past decade."

"Noncommercial energy sources, such as wood fuel, and crop residues, are estimated to account for over half of the country's energy consumption"

"The nation furthermore demands 3.5 million tons of oil imports in addition to almost 2 million tons of diesel to feed oil-based power plants being planned and built all around the country. The additional petroleum and coal imports are causing a disruption in the GDP by as much as 2% annually"

It really is not clear how Bangladesh can survive without oil and gas. All the oil has to be imported.