Jul 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM | Mark Hodgson

Jordan is stuck between a lot of rock, some desert, and some very hard places. And there is a River involved aswell.

I share your sympathy for their plight.

I think this Wikipedia entry is interesting

"At the 1991 Madrid Conference, Jordan agreed to negotiate a peace treaty sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union.[77] TheIsrael-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on 26 October 1994.[77] In 1997, Israeli agents entered Jordan using Canadian passports and poisoned Khaled Meshal, a senior Hamas leader.[77] Israel provided an antidote to the poison and released dozens of political prisoners, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin after King Hussein threatened to annul the peace treaty.[77]

On 7 February 1999, Abdullah II ascended the throne upon the death of his father Hussein.[78] Abdullah embarked on aggressive economic liberalization when he assumed the throne, and his reforms led to an economic boom which continued until 2008.[79] Abdullah II has been credited with increasing foreign investment, improving public-private partnerships and providing the foundation for Aqaba's free-trade zone and Jordan's flourishing information and communication technology(ICT) sector.[79] He also set up five other special economic zones.[79] During the following years Jordan's economy experienced hardship as it dealt with the effects of the Great Recession and spillover from the Arab Spring, including a cut in its petroleum supply and the collapse of trade with neighboring countries.[80]"

Cabo Verde next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

We have the usual pleas and claims:

"As a small island development state (SIDS), Cabo Verde has one of the lowest GHG emissions per capita and yet is
among the countries most vulnerable to climate change. In particular, Cabo Verde faces severe adaptation challenges associated with water resources availability, food and energy security, and desertification processes."

"The entire [energy] sector is heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels (petroleum, diesel, gasoline, gas butane, and gasoil) and, in the year 2000, corresponded to around 92.9% of the CO2e emissions in the country."

"However, Cabo Verde is beginning to gradually increase the proportion of wind and solar energy in the energy mix, moving from 1.2% of electricity production from renewable energy n 2010 to about 25% (representing 35 MW capacity) today. Cabo Verde supports and works closely with the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4all) Initiative and – as host to the ECOWAS Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (ECREEE) – assumes regional leadership on energy transformation in Africa.
According to Cabo Verde´s National Energy Efficiency Plan (PNAEE), today’s primary energy consumption will grow by about 2% until 2020 and then increase to 3% per year from 2020 to 2030 (“Base Scenario”)."

They propose to deal with this as follows:

"We attempt to depart from the Base Scenario and its GHG emissions profile by transforming the electricity sector to rely on 100% renewable sources until 2025 and by reducing overall consumption by 20% until 2030."

"Cabo Verde unconditionally commits to achieving a electric power penetration rate of 30% by 2025. Provided the necessary international technical and financial support is made available (in adequate, timely and predictable manner), Cabo Verde will increase the penetration rate to 100% of the installed electric power from renewables sources by 2025, with best efforts to achieve this indicative goal already by 2020. The indicative implementation trajectory is (i) 35% RE penetration rate in 2016-2018; (ii) 50% RE penetration rate in 2018-2020; and (iii) 100% RE penetration rate in 2020-2025.
Renewable sources will be based mostly on mature technologies, in particular, wind and solar, without however ignoring the potential for geothermal energy and biodiesel in specific areas."

And: "In addition, Cabo Verde unconditionally commits to achieving long-term energy efficiency gains in the order of 10% in relation to the Base Scenario by 2030. Conditional on international technical and financial support, Cabo Verde will reduce overall energy demand by 20% in relation to the Base Scenario by 2030, with best efforts to achieve this indicative reduction effort already by 2025.
With respect to the goal to achieve the 10% reduction and 20% reduction, respectively, in overall energy demand by 2030, Cabo Verde intends to adopt a number of energy efficiency measures in several sub-sectors, including buildings, appliances, large energy consumers, fuel use and at household level."

This last strikes me as optimistic, if not simply naive.

Unfortunately, as with so many INDCs, I can't see it anywhere spelled out what the net effect of all this means in terms of GHG emissions (will they go up, down, or stay about the same?).

Depending on whether or not you ignore the effect of compounding, however, the projected increase in energy demand might suggest an increase of between 40% and 50% by 2030. Their most optimistic assumption against BaU scenario is of a 20% reduction in demand, which looks like an increase of 20-30% in real terms. Much therefore depends on whether their proposed switch to renewables will close or eliminate (or even exceed) this gap. From their INDCs, I find it difficult to tell.

They do, however, give us an indication of the price tag:

"To reach the above indicative targets, investments in the order of 310 million EUR (50% RE penetration) and 1 billion EUR (100% RE penetration) will be needed." Wikipedia tells us their population (estimated as at 2015) is approximately 525,000, so the more optimistic target will cost close to 2,000 Euros for every man, woman and child on the islands.

Grenada next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

As with so many small countries, one wonders why the commitment, given that "Grenada’s total emissions are not significant in the global context with 2010 emissions being 251, 649 tons of co2 - 0.0005% of total global emission."

But..."Historically Grenada has been highly dependent on the importation of fossil fuels to meet its energy production and transportation needs, however in recent years efforts have been made to introduce alternative technologies into the energy mix. Electricity production from the use of solar has already surpassed 2% and is increasing as more businesses and individuals are taking advantage of the incentives provided to use solar technologies. Recent studies on geothermal power have given a conservative estimate of a 15MW potential."

Were it not for the insignificance of their GHG emissions, this would, however, be pretty impressive:

"Grenada commits to reducing its Greenhouse gas emissions by 30% of 2010 by 2025, with an indicative reduction of 40% of 2010 by 2030."

Judging by the graph forming part of their INDCs, this is an absolute reduction, not simply against a BaU scenario.

It will, however, cost quite a lot of money (not a lot in the global context, but a lot for such a small population and for such small absolute emissions reductions):

"Grenada’s INDC will cost USD$161,430,500.00 to implement through 2025. Grenada anticipates meeting these costs through access to multilateral and bilateral support including through the Green Climate Fund, multilateral agencies and bilateral arrangements with development partners. These funds will be used to leverage the limited national resources and technical capacities that are available for combatting climate change."

Wikipedia suggests a population of c 110,000, so that looks like close to $1,500 for every man, woman and child on the island (to 2025 - the INDCs don't tell us the costs to 2030).

Barbados next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

For once, this is an offer of a clear and transparent target:

"Barbados intends to achieve an economy-wide reduction in GHG emissions of 44% compared to its business as usual (BAU) scenario by 2030. In absolute terms, this translates to a reduction of 23% compared with the baseline year, 2008.
As an interim target, the intention will be to achieve an economy-wide reduction of 37% compared to its business as usual (BAU) scenario by 2025, equivalent to an absolute reduction of 21% compared to 2008."

I wish them luck, but can't help feeling that their plans revolve around some optimistic assumptions:

"Energy consumption accounted for 72% of Barbados’ GHG emissions in 2008 and is therefore the focus of its mitigation activity. Within the sector 67% arises from energy generation and 33% from transport. The following sub-sector contributions have been identified:

i. Renewable energy: contributing 65% of total peak electrical demand by 2030 . The country has made huge strides in this regard; for example distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) installation is growing exponentially and this trend is expected to continue. Other planned measures include waste-to-energy and biomass generation plants, wind, distributed and centralized solar PV and capture and use of landfill gas for energy generation.
ii. Electrical energy efficiency: a 22% reduction in electricity consumption compared to a BAU10 scenario in 2029. Planned measures in this sector include the ‘Public Sector Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programme’, implementation of applicable recommendations through the Caribbean Hotel Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Action-Advanced Program (CHENACT), energy efficiency measures in homes and various LED lighting initiatives.
iii. Non-electrical energy efficiency: a 29% reduction in non-electric energy consumption including transport, compared to a BAU scenario in 2029. GOB is investing in alternative vehicles and fuels such as compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, ethanol, natural gas, hybrid and electric and encouraging their adoption through tax incentives."

And all this "Despite its negligible contribution to global GHG emissions (approximately 0.004%)". So, while I can compliment them with one hand (while wondering about the optimism of their assumptions), with the other hand I have to point out that the reductions we are talking about will be negligible in global terms.

They don't tell us what it will all cost, but they do tell us this:

"Barbados looks to regional and international cooperation for support in order to progress the mitigation and adaptation priorities set out in its INDC, that are in line with its national development objectives."

And this:

"Barbados requires substantial assistance to meet its adaptation objectives set out in its INDC."

And (in case we haven't got the message) this:

"Barbados will require significant financial, technology transfer and capacity building support to deliver the intended contribution and related infrastructure. International grant and loan financing mechanisms such as the existing ‘Energy Smart Fund’ will be imperative to provide financial and technical support to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in Barbados. Initial analysis suggests that a number of the planned renewable energy projects (linked to mitigation in the waste sector) in particular, provide a strong economic argument to stimulate private sector investment; however enabling and technology transfer support will still be required. Mitigation actions in the energy efficiency and transport sectors will be largely dependent on international capital financing to implement and to achieve the relative contributions."

Vietnam next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

"Viet Nam’s INDC identifies the GHG reduction pathway in the 2021-2030 period. With domestic resources GHG emissions will be reduced by 8% by 2030 compared to the Business as Usual scenario (BAU). The above-mentioned contribution could be increased up to 25% with international support."

In order to assess the absolute effect of this on Vietnam's GHG emissions, we need to look at the BaU scenario, against which it is compared. Helpfully, unlike some INDCs I have looked at, they do spell it out:

"Viet Nam’s BAU scenario for GHG emissions was developed based on the assumption of economic growth in the absence of climatechange policies. The BAU starts from 2010 (the latest year of the national GHG inventory) and includes the energy, agriculture, waste and LULUCF sectors.
 GHG emissions in 2010: 246.8 million tCO2e
 Projections for 2020 and 2030 (not included industrial processes):
- 2020: 474.1 million tCO2e
- 2030: 787.4 million tCO2e"

This represents close to a tripling of GHG emissions in the 20 years from 2010 to 2030, so even the more optimistic offer (conditional on international funding) of a 25% reduction against BaU looks like a real terms increase of approximately 140%. The unconditional 8% offer would represent a real-terms increase of approximately 180%.

Arguably it doesn't matter too much,given that "In 2010, GHG emissions of Viet Nam accounted only for approximately 0.5% of global GHG emissions and GHG emissions per capita were relatively low at 2.84 tonnes of CO2e." However, it does represent evidence that the Paris Accords will not reduce GHG emissions, and in many countries, GHG emissions will rise significantly. Vietnam does not tell us what its mitigation measures will cost, only that the slightly more optimistic conditional target can only be met with "international support". Similarly they do not tell us what their planned adaptation measures will cost, but: " It is estimated that the national budget will be able to meet approximately one third of the financial needs to implement adaptation measures in this period, and will seek international support and private sector investment for the remainder."

Jul 16, 2017 at 7:55 PM | Mark Hodgson

Cabo Verde is better known in the UK as the Cape Verde Islands, to the west of Africa.

From Wikipedia:

"The Cape Verde archipelago was uninhabited until the 15th century, when Portuguese explorers discovered and colonized the islands, establishing the first European settlement in the tropics. Ideally located for the Atlantic slave trade, the islands grew prosperous throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, attracting merchants, privateers, and pirates. The end of slavery in the 19th century led to economic decline and emigration."

Independence from Portugal in 1975 did not go well, until the 1990s, and Cape Verde lost out on the Jet Age Holiday Market that did so much for the Spanish Canary Islands etc. This is now changing, and the cost and shortage of reliable electricity is a major threat to continued development.

Modern commercial shipping has no need to detour and stop in Cape Verde, so fuel tankers have to make special trips.15 (?) years ago, sailing yachts tended to avoid the Cape Verde Islands, because their reputation was, that they were best avoided.

With the right investment, Cape Verde has a lot to offer, but reliable power is required.

Mark Hodgson, Grenada

"Electricity production from the use of solar has already surpassed 2% and is increasing as more businesses and individuals are taking advantage of the incentives provided to use solar technologies."

The "incentives" are not good enough to make solar in Grenada a cheaper form of electricity than diesel generators. Who is having to pay for the "incentives"?

"The Grenada Electricity Services Ltd. (GRENLEC,) the sole provider of electricity in Grenada. .... Two hundred and thirty-five  employees provide integrated services of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to more than 40,000 customers.   

GRENLEC is actively pursuing a strategic goal to provide for 35% of demand through renewable energy generation by 2016.  This will be a far-reaching transformation from the diesel generation plants that currently supply the tri-island state.  Customer renewable energy interconnections currently account for more than 1% of demand.  GRENLEC has installed an additional 182 KW of renewable energy in Grenada and Petit Martinique.

The Company owns and operates one main generating station in Grenada with an installed capacity of 39 MW, a 1.920 MW station in Carriacou and a 483 KW station in Petit Martinique. Our distribution network is comprised of about 220 miles of 11KV distribution lines, which serve 99.5% of the population."

Another Island Nation that cannot survive without imported fossil fuels.

"Barbados will require significant financial, technology transfer and capacity building support to deliver the intended contribution and related infrastructure."

Which translates as:

Barbados is unable to deliver its proposals, without everyone else paying for the technology they have been promised, by people who don't understand their own technological ignorance.

Mauritania next (I've just learned it's the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, which I'm ashamed to say I didn't know). INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015.

Unfortunately this will be very brief, as it's in French, and I'm afraid that my French isn't good enough to guarantee avoiding mistakes in translation. Helpfully, they have provided a brief summary which I can understand, however.

Reference year 2010, period of engagement 2020-2030. Objective - GHG emissions reduction against a Business as Usual scenario, of 22.3%. This is 12% unconditional and 88% conditional (i.e. conditional on finance). The financial needs are $17.6Bn in total, comprising $8.2Bn for mitigation and $9.4Bn for adaptation.

With a population of c. 3.6M in 2015, this is close to a request for $5,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

If I read correctly, their Business as Usual scenario will see emissions come close to trebling between 2010 and 2030, so a 22.3% reduction against that scenario isn't particularly impressive, since it would see their real-terms emissions still more than doubling (and some), all at huge financial cost to the international community.

On this one, assuming I have translated it correctly, it's safe to say that I'm less than impressed.

Guinea-Bissau next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

A country with many problems, of which one might assume that climate change ranked a long way down the list:

"NATIONAL CONTEXT
Guinea-Bissau is located in the West African north-western Inter-tropical zone, 10º59 '-12º20' north latitude and 13º40 '- 16º43' west longitude, with an area of 36,125 km2. Poverty eradication is one of the key objectives of the Guinea-Bissau Government. The country’s population is estimated at 1,548,159 inhabitants (2014) with a growth rate of 2.2% in 1991-2009. According to the results of the Light Survey on Poverty Assessment (ILAP II, 2010) 69.3% of Guineans are poor and 33% are extremely poor. Guinea-Bissau is an integral part of the LDC group. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is estimated at USD 750 (2014) with a real growth rate of GDP of 2.9%. According to the United Nations
Development Programme Report / Unit of Policy and Strategy (2014) the country was ranked 177 in the world ranking and had a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.396. It is a country with considerable natural capital. It has significant water resources, translated into 130 km3/ year of surface water and 445 km3/year of groundwater, a vast and rich maritime territory (54,000 km2 in 270 km of coastline), considerable biodiversity within West Africa. Nearly 10% of its territory is covered by mangrove, perhaps the most significant proportion of the world. Currently about 15% of the country’s land and maritime territory is a sanctuary for the preservation of biodiversity and this percentage is expected to increase to 26% in 2020."

Despite being a GHG sink, they still play the card that says they are at risk from climate change, so they want both to mitigate (why?, given that they're a sink) and to have money to adapt:

"Guinea-Bissau is an absolute Green House Gas (GHG) sink country, i.e., it is contributing to global climate change mitigation whilst being one of the most affected countries by climate change consequences. This determines the focus of the country on climate change. Adaptation and risk reduction are priorities."

Adaptation, which in fairness they focus on (they would, wouldn't they?) is still problematic in view of their poverty:

"The following difficulties in this area are worth mentioning:
 Weak financial capacity by the state and research institutions to collect, file and analysis weather and renewable natural resources ;
 Shortage of financial resources to purchase certain data and software necessary for an assessment of vulnerability and adaptation;
 Insufficient financial resources to build capacity and set up a perennial system of assessment of vulnerability and adaptation;
 Weak resource mobilization to fund programs and adaptation strategies."

Money is therefore the key:

"The Strengthening Resilience and Adaptation Capacity of Agricultural and Water Sectors to Climate Change in Guinea Bissau Project (PRRCASAHAC-GB) carried out a cost-benefit analysis to adaptation in the Gabu region, east of the
country, taking into account as a reference the development trend. This analysis showed that Guinea-Bissau's efforts to
adapt to climate change will be considerable. Guinea-Bissau requires approximately USD 42 million for the implementation of adaptation projects in all reference sectors in the two administrative sectors (Pitche and Pirada)
in the Gabu region. It should be noted that the country has eight (8) administrative regions and all of them are equally
vulnerable."

Costs of $42M don't sound excessive, but they're for 2 sectors out of 8. If one assumes (and of course it may be an incorrect assumption) that all sectors' costs are roughly equal, then costs start to push up towards $170M.

So far as mitigation is concerned, there is little electricity use by its poor inhabitants, and they intend to change that, with the result that a Business as Usual scenario would see GHG emissions increase hugely (by many multiples of a low base), though in absolute terms those emissions would be very modest compared to global levels. Their mitigation plan is as follows:

"The measures that Guinea-Bissau has appraised so far as contributions are as follows:
I. Establish and schedule a new forestry policy. The vision is of a sustainable management of forest resources - including through conservation and restoration of forests - to enhance a socio-economic balance that meets the needs of communities and ensures their accountability;
II. Conduct studies on the energy potential of the country and set the energy development incorporating the largest possible potential of renewable energies in the energy mix;
III. Develop and establish a legal framework through a national strategy for long-term low-carbon development."

"Meeting the recommended goal requires an overall investment not inferior to 200 million USD by 2020 and 500
million between 2020 and 2030 foreign aid."

In other words, they are looking for $700M by 2030 for an unspecified level of mitigation in a country which is currently a GHG sink. Add c $170M for adaptation (admittedly that figure is an extrapolation which might or might not be accurate) and we are looking at $870M for unspecified but modest reductions in GHG emissions against a BaU scenario (and almost certainly an increase of GHG emissions in absolute terms). On a rough calculation, this looks like c $550 for every man, woman and child in the country.

They freely admit they don't have the data to make any sort of meaningful assessment of their offer:

" it was not possible in the early stage of formulation of the planned contributions of Guinea-Bissau to perform
calculations to support our projections due to lack of data. Therefore, it is proposed that the period up to 2020 be
dedicated to the development of in-depth and detailed studies in the two sectors (forestry and energy) and of the
respective relevant measures. Only then would it be possible to perform calculations that would allow an analysis of the
mitigation potential for Guinea-Bissau, allowing at the same time the making of a proposal for an ambitious and fair
contribution."

It looks to me (as do so many INDCs) that a poor country desperately seeking financial assistance is trying to play the UN game in order to extract much-needed financial assistance from the international community. If obtained, it looks as though it will do next to nothing to combat "man-made climate change".

Guinea-Bissau

"The following difficulties in this area are worth mentioning:
 Weak financial capacity by the state and research institutions to collect, file and analysis weather and renewable natural resources ;
 Shortage of financial resources to purchase certain data and software necessary for an assessment of vulnerability and adaptation;
 Insufficient financial resources to build capacity and set up a perennial system of assessment of vulnerability and adaptation;
 Weak resource mobilization to fund programs and adaptation strategies."

This is classic "Yes Prime Minister" writing. The country is in a mess, and the Government clueless as to what is going on, yet they can calculate all these figures to one decimal point.

My best wishes to residents of Guinea Bissau, but this demonstrates the authority with which zero evidence is presented in Climate Science.

It looks to me (as do so many INDCs) that a poor country desperately seeking financial assistance is trying to play the UN game in order to extract much-needed financial assistance from the international community. If obtained, it looks as though it will do next to nothing to combat "man-made climate change".

Jul 17, 2017 at 9:06 AM | Mark Hodgson

+1! The UN have designed the rules of the game.It is not UN Money that the UN is offering to give away.

Bizarrely, it is the unlikely combination of Trump and Erdogan that have started to expose, and strike back at the corrupted UN Empire.

Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

Another one written in French. As always with such documents, although I am reasonably confident in my ability to translate the essentials, I am not confident that a detailed analysis would definitely be error-free. So again this will have to be relatively brief.

Briefly, the target is a 28.5% reduction against a Business as Usual scenario. It sounds quite impressive, the only problem being that BaU would see GHG emissions more than double between 2012 and 2030. With the proffered "reduction" real-terms emissions will increase by over 50%.

Some costs are offered up, and they make it clear that international finance "will be crucial". However, the costings seem to be in Central African Francs, so I'll leave it there, rather than risk making an error.

Benin next (final INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

Unfortunately for me, these are also written in French, so this will be another brief comment.

Their emissions levels are, not surprisingly, very low. Agriculture and energy account for 98% of them. A Business as Usual scenario would see their emissions come close to doubling between 2015 and 2030. Put very roughly and crudely, their target is a reduction against the BaU scenario which would instead see their real GHG emissions increase by something closer to 50%. This target is 20 unconditional and 80% conditional (on international support and finance).

Helpfully they provide costings (in US$). Mitigation costs would be $30.13Bn, of which $2.32Bn is unconditional and $27.81Bn is conditional (i.e required from the international community). Adaptation costs are respectively $12Bn, $13Bn, and $18Bn.

That's a lot of money, especially for a country with an estimated population of 10,725,000 in 2015. It makes a grand total of between $4,500 and $5,000 for every man,woman and child in the country, all for an increase in (admittedly modest) emissions of 50%.

Lebanon next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015). Another country which,in my opinion, has many problems, not all of which are of its own making. MY sympathy is enhanced by the fact that their INDCs have been submitted in English!

As Lebanon puts its own problems, in its INDCs: "Lebanon presents its INDC in a situation of development challenges, including, amongst other issues, a lack of security due to regional turmoil and a high level of poverty." And:

"...the country still suffers from a myriad of development challenges, mainly related to lack of security due to regional turmoil, political instability as well as massive inequality and a high level of poverty. Lebanon’s poverty rate is estimated to be 28% with 8% considered extremely poor..."

Furthermore: "To exacerbate matters, the Syrian crisis has led to the arrival of around 1.13 million registered refugees
to the country, increasing Lebanon’s population by 30% in just over 2 years and adding stress to the already-stretched economy and natural resources. This surge in population has led to an estimated 5% increase in road traffic and therefore in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. It has also led to an increase in domestic water demand for refugees of around 70 million m3 by the end of 2014, which is equivalent to a 12% increase in the national water demand. It has also added 251 MW to the country’s power needs, an increase of over 10%, noting that the electricity purchasing from Syria dropped by around 88% during the same period. This demand can currently only be met
through private generators, leading to additional carbon emissions and air pollutants. Other impacts include felling of forest trees to obtain firewood..."

They are certainly playing the UN game. I was rather intrigued by this statement: "Lebanon estimates that the total cost in 2020 from climate change would be equivalent to about USD 4,000 per household. This is around a third of the average household annual earnings, which currently is about USD 12,000, as a result, many households would become impoverished..."

This is their unconditional mitigation target:

" A GHG emission reduction of 15% compared to the BusinessAs-Usual (BAU) scenario in 2030.
 15% of the power and heat demand in 2030 is generated by renewable energy sources.
 A 3% reduction in power demand through energy-efficiency measures in 2030 compared to the demand under the
Business-As-Usual scenario.
The unconditional mitigation scenario includes the impacts of mitigation actions which Lebanon is able to implement without additional international support."

This is their conditional mitigation target:

" A GHG emission reduction of 30% compared to the BAU scenario in 2030.
 20% of the power and heat demand in 2030 is generated by renewable energy sources.
 A 10% reduction in power demand through energy-efficiency in 2030 compared to the demand under the BAU scenario.
The conditional mitigation scenario covers the mitigation actions under the unconditional scenario, as well as further mitigation actions which can be implemented upon the provision of additional international support."

BaU scenario would see GHG emissions increasing by almost 100%. The conditional "reduction" would see emissions increasing by less than 50%. The unconditional reduction would see emissions increase by around 20% (all roughly 2015-2030).

So, still an increase, but less than many, and nothing to worry about considering "...its low share in global emissions (0.07%)."

No costings are given, but they do say:

"Lebanon will require international support to achieve its conditional mitigation target as well as to implement its adaptation actions. This will include capacity building, technology transfer and financial support. For example, in the water sector financial and capacity building support as well as technology transfer and awareness raising are needed to optimize water storage, water use efficiency, improve irrigation systems and solid waste and wastewater treatment, and reuse of wastewater. In addition, further capacity building and financial support is required to complete an integrated monitoring and evaluation system allowing effective planning and implementation of adaptation policies."

Jul 17, 2017 at 8:56 PM | Mark Hodgson

Lebanon. I think the Lebanese/Beirut Tourist Agency has been developing the Wikipedia entries, without cross-referencing with INDC submissions. I am in my 50s. "Beirut" and "war zone" are words I associate with each other, along with TV News footage to confirm the point.

From Wikipedia (Beirut):

"After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Beirut, along with the rest of Lebanon, was placed under the French Mandate. Lebanon achieved independence in 1943, and Beirut became the capital city. The city remained a regional intellectual capital, becoming a major tourist destination and a banking haven,[47][48] especially for the Persian Gulf oil boom.

This era of relative prosperity ended in 1975 when the Lebanese Civil War broke out throughout the country."

"In an area dominated by authoritarian or militarist regimes, the Lebanese capital was generally regarded as a haven of liberalism, though a precarious one.[citation needed] With its seaport and airport—coupled with Lebanon's free economic and foreign exchange system, solid gold-backed currency, banking-secrecy law, and favourable interest rates—Beirut became an established banking centre for Arab wealth, much of which was invested in construction, commercial enterprise, and industry (mostly the manufacture of textiles and shoes, food processing, and printing).[98] The economy of Beirut is diverse, including publishing, banking, trade and various industries. During that period, Beirut was the region's financial services center. At the onset of the oil boom starting in the 1960s, Lebanon-based banks were the main recipients of the region's petrodollars.[99]"

"The Lebanese banking system is endowed with several characteristics that promote the role of Beirut as a regional financial center, in terms of ensuring protection for foreign capital and earnings. The Lebanese currency is fully convertible and can be exchanged freely with any other currency. Moreover, no restrictions are put on the free flow of capital and earnings into and out of the Lebanese economy. The passing of the banking secrecy law on 3 September 1956, subjected all banks established in Lebanon as well as foreign banks' branches to the "secret of the profession". Both article 16 of law No. 282 dated 30 December 1993 and article 12 of decree No. 5451 dated 26 August. 1994, offer exemptions from income tax on all interest and revenues earned on all types of accounts opened in Lebanese banks."

Beirut WAS the place in the Middle East for the oil rich to play and party. Ironically, it went wrong just as OPEC hiked the profits from oil. Lebanon still attracts oil money, and their Banking Secrecy Laws are very attractive to those who value secrecy over the best Interest Rates.

Sadly this wealth does not filter down through the economy. Lebanon cannot compete with the likes of Kuwait, as the Government receives no direct revenue from the sale of oil.

Mark Hodgson, Ivory Coast

The Wikipedia entry is a fairly depressing tale of civil war/conflict/strife etc since Independence. Some of the consequences include:

"In recent years, Ivory Coast has been subject to greater competition and falling prices in the global marketplace for its primary agricultural crops: coffee and cocoa. That, compounded with high internal corruption, makes life difficult for the grower, those exporting into foreign markets, and the labor force, inasmuch as instances of indentured labor have been reported in the cocoa and coffee production in every edition of the U.S. Department of Labor's List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor since 2009."

"In 2015, the United Nations engineered the Sustainable Development Goals, replacing the Millennium Development Goals. The goals focus on health, education, poverty, hunger, climate change, water sanitation, and hygiene. A major focus was clean water and sanitation. Experts working on this field have designed the WASH concept. WASH focuses on safe drinkable water, hygiene, and proper sanitation. The group has had a major impact on the sub-Saharan region of Africa, particularly the Ivory Coast. By 2030, they plan to have universal and equal access to safe and affordable drinking water."

I applaud the UN's "Sustainable Development Goals", but do not understand how they are linked to Global Warming. The country is not short of agricultural land or water. The best way to provide affordable drinking water is cheap power.

Jul 17, 2017 at 8:43 PM | Mark Hodgson

Benin. I have copied this from Wikipedia. I assume it is true, but it reads like a tragic comedy.

"For the next twelve years after 1960, ethnic strife contributed to a period of turbulence. There were several coups and regime changes, with the figures of Hubert Maga, Sourou Apithy, Justin Ahomadegbé, and Emile Derlin Zinsou dominating; the first three each represented a different area and ethnicity of the country. These three agreed to form a Presidential Council after violence marred the 1970 elections.

On 7 May 1972, Maga ceded power to Ahomadegbe. On 26 October 1972, Lt. Col. Mathieu Kérékou overthrew the ruling triumvirate, becoming president and stating that the country would not "burden itself by copying foreign ideology, and wants neither Capitalism, Communism, nor Socialism". On 30 November 1974 however, he announced that the country was officially Marxist, under control of the Military Council of the Revolution (CNR), which nationalized the petroleum industry and banks. On 30 November 1975, he renamed the country to the People's Republic of Benin.

The CNR was dissolved in 1979, and Kérékou arranged show elections where he was the only allowed candidate. Establishing relations with China, North Korea, and Libya, he put nearly all businesses and economic activities under state control, causing foreign investment in Benin to dry up. Kérékou attempted to reorganize education, pushing his own aphorisms such as "Poverty is not a fatality", resulting in a mass exodus of teachers, along with a large number of other professionals.[26] The regime financed itself by contracting to take nuclear waste first from the Soviet Union and later from France.[26]

In 1980, Kérékou converted to Islam and changed his first name to Ahmed, then changed his name back after claiming to be a born-again Christian.

In 1989, riots broke out after the regime did not have money to pay its army. The banking system collapsed. Eventually Kérékou renounced Marxism and a convention forced Kérékou to release political prisoners and arrange elections.[26]Marxism-Leninism was also abolished as the nation's form of government.[27]

The country's name was officially changed to the Republic of Benin on 1 March 1990, after the newly formed government'sconstitution was complete.[28]

In a 1991 election, Kérékou lost to Nicéphore Soglo. Kérékou returned to power after winning the 1996 vote. In 2001, a closely fought election resulted in Kérékou winning another term, after which his opponents claimed election irregularities.

In 1999, Kérékou issued a national apology for the substantial role Africans had played in the Atlantic slave trade."

Kérékou died in 2015. I had never heard of him. The UK's post colonial legacy includes Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe.

The Wikipedia entry does include a section on Science and Technology. I presume it was written by Benin Government
employees in the Science and Technology Department.

Health and Health Care, particularly for women is depressingly bleak.

The Benin Electricity Distribution Co does have a Website, and you can pay your bills on line. http://bedcpower.com/
It is not clear how many customers they have, with the ability to get On Line at all, let alone reliably.

Mark, I hope you don't mind.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/17/christopher-booker-trump-took-the-heat-but-the-rest-of-the-g20s-posturing-wont-hide-their-rising-co2-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-2554155

Jul 18, 2017 at 1:07 AM | clipe

I think that article proves Mark Hodgson's efforts are worthwhile, and that the UN's IPPC is a waste of money and human life.

Please see Jul 18, 2017 at 12:07 AM | golf charlie regarding Ivory Coast. People are dying due to a lack of clean drinking water, whilst Climate Science wastes millions trying to reproduce Mann's Hockey Stick.

clipe, I don't mind at all, but thanks for drawing my attention to it.

My objective is to make the information generally available, since neither the BBC nor the rest of the MSM will do so. I'm more than happy for it to reach a wider audience. However much I like Bishop Hill, I fear that my thread on here will only reach a limited audience, without wider dissemination. I have no personal feelings at stake, just a desire for facts to be more widely known.

Ukraine next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015). I always suspected this one would be more interesting than many. Given their problems, their INDCs are unsurprisingly rather short, so I'll quote from their introduction in full, since it pretty much sets out the whole story. You've just got to love their expressed optimism about Crimea:

"Over the years of independence since 1991, Ukraine has contributed greatly, with 10.2 billion t to reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Ukraine amounted to 944.4 Mt CO2eq in 1990, and 402.7 Mt CO2eq (excluding LULUCF) in 2012, i.e. 42.6% of the 1990 level. GHG emissions including LULUCF amounted to 874.6 Mt CO2eq in 1990 and 375.4 Mt CO2eq in 2012, i.e. 42.9% of the 1990 level. This reduction resulted mainly from a GDP decrease and a decline in the population and social living standards, which are expected to be recovered and improved to reach the EU level.
In 2014-2015, the temporary annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol city by the Russian Federation as well as the anti-terrorist operation in some areas of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts have radically changed Ukraine’s development course. The need has arisen to defend the nation, to build defense fortifications along thousands of kilometers, including those on the border, and to increase the production of weapons, ammunition and other means of defense, which requires upgrowth in output of heavy industry products, metals, cement, etc.
Due to the military aggression 20% of the country’s economic potential has been destroyed. After restoration of territorial integrity and state sovereignty over the whole territory of Ukraine, the need will arise to reconstruct ruined industrial
facilities and infrastructural networks, including railway infrastructure, gas and oil pipelines, water supply systems, sewerage networks, and to repair and build new residential houses and social facilities. All this will cause increase in the production of metals, non-metal construction items, food products, etc. Ukraine will acutely need multi-billion capital
investments. Ukraine’s INDC will be revised after the restoration of its territorial integrity and state sovereignty as well as after the approval of post-2020 socio-economic development strategies with account of investment mobilization."

It is against this background that they make their GHG emissions pitch:

"Ukraine defines ambitious, but at the same time substantiated and fair target with regard to the level of GHG emissions. It will not exceed 60% of 1990 GHG emissions level in 2030."

That sounds very impressive, but of course is not so impressive when set against the background set out in the introduction. It represents roughly a 40% increase against 2012 emissions levels.

Incidentally, this demonstrates to my mind the cost of war, not only in absolute terms (money, destruction, and most importantly lives) but also with regard to GHG emissions. It's a pity the UN doesn't spend more time performing what I would regard as one of its main functions, namely international diplomacy and the avoidance of war, instead of becoming a man-made climate change hydra. If it did its main job properly, the climate change aspect might not be so big an issue.

Understandably, although Ukraine make the usual noises, presumably in an effort to unlock funding, they don't really seem to be much interested in their INDCs. For instance:

"An approach to including the land use, land-use and forestry in the climate change mitigation structure will be defined as soon as technical opportunities emerge, but no later than 2020."

And:

"Ukraine will support national adaptation processes in the context of the international commitments in this field. For a medium-term outlook, the adaptation activities will be considered with the same priority as mitigation activates."

Since they don't really spell out what they plan to do, it's no surprise that they don't tell us what it will cost. But, also understandably, they would like international assistance:

"Ambitiousness of stated target envisages making efforts to substantially prevent increase of GHG emissions under conditions of the significant planned structural changes, restoration and development of infrastructure, post-war reconstruction. All these actions will require development and implementation of efficient and effective policies and imposing of limitations of GHG emissions which are beyond current international obligations of Ukraine; as well as
require significant financial investments."

Haiti next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015. Another country with plenty of problems, for whom playing the climate change game with the UN seems to be an attempt to unlock much-needed international funding.

Again, the INDCs were submitted in French, so my comments will be short, for fear of misleading by imperfect translation. Fortunately some summary information is provided, so I can supply the headlines.

In 2000 Haiti's GHG emissions represented only 0.03% of the global total. Their population is 8.578 million.

Their mitigation offer is against a Business as Usual scenario. It represents an unconditional offer to reduce emissions by 5% against BaU, by 2030; a conditional offer to reduce emissions against BaU by 2030 by 26%.

Unfortunately, Business as Usual will see emissions increasing by approximately 150% by 2030, so the unconditional offer represents a real-terms increase in GHG emissions of nearly 140%, while the conditional offer represents a real-terms GHG emissions increase of close to 100%.

The requested financial help is roughly 2/3 for adaptation and 1/3 for mitigation. A total of $25.387Bn, comprising $8.773Bn for mitigation and $16.614Bn for adaptation.

By my calculation that's around $3,000 for every man, woman and child in Haiti.

Mark Hodgson, from Reuters 18th July 2017

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-rebels-declaration-idUSKBN1A31AX

"Pro-Russian rebel leader in east Ukraine unveils plan for new state

MOSCOW/KIEV (Reuters) - The pro-Russian rebel leader of a breakaway region in eastern Ukraine proposed on Tuesday replacing Ukraine with a new federal state, in comments that could further undermine a 2015 peace deal that is already faltering.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko rejected the idea, describing Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR), as part of "a puppet show", with Russia pulling his strings in order to relay a message.

France and Germany, which are involved in diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine crisis, also condemned the proposal."

Unfortunately, Ukraine is not about to clarify its position concerning CO2 emissions.

From this Wikipedia site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Ukraine

"Energy in Ukraine describes energy and electricity production, consumption and import inUkraine. As an industry it is part of the Fuel and Energy Complex that combines smaller industries such as power generation and distribution, coal, oil and gas mining industries as well as transportation of resources. Ukraine's geographic position and proximity to Russia explain its importance as a natural gas and petroleum liquids transit country.

Approximately 3.0 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas flowed through Ukraine in 2013 to Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Turkey.[1]

Ukraine depends on Russia for its supplies of natural gas and oil (which are also produced domestically), although being net-exporter of electricity and coal. Ukraine tries to diversify energy sources.[2]"

Nothing about Ukraine (The Ukraine?) seems simple.

Jul 18, 2017 at 8:05 PM | Mark Hodgson

Haiti, a fascinating history. Haiti achieved Independence from France by having a "slaves" revolt in 1804, the year before the Battle of Trafalgar put an end to Napolean's Navy.

Both Europe and the US were unwilling to recognise Haiti. The mistrust was mutual and persisted.

Papa Doc Duvalier was in Office from 1957 to 1971, relying on brutal thugs, the Tontons Macoutes. He was succeeded by his son, Baby Doc Duvalier. The Duvaliers, along with their corrupt regimes MAY have helped inspire the scriptwriters for Live and Let Die, and this was not helpful for the Tourist trade.

Stormy politics continued. Then, copied from Wikipedia:

"In 2004, Tropical Storm Jeanne skimmed the north coast of Haiti, leaving 3,006 people dead in flooding and mudslides, mostly in the city of Gonaïves.[108] In 2008 Haiti was again struck by tropical storms; Tropical Storm Fay, Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike all produced heavy winds and rain. There were 331 dead and about 800,000 in need of humanitarian aid.[109] The state of affairs produced by these storms was intensified by already high food and fuel prices that had caused a food crisis and political unrest in April 2008."

"On 12 January 2010, at 4:53pm local time, Haiti was struck by a magnitude-7.0 earthquake. This was the country's most severe earthquake in over 200 years.[111] The 2010 Haiti earthquake was reported to have left up to 316,000 people dead and 1.6 million homeless,[112] though later reports found these numbers to have been grossly inflated, and put the death toll between 46,000 and 85,000.[113] The country has yet to recover from the 2010 earthquake and a subsequent and massive Haiti cholera outbreak that was triggered when cholera-infected waste from a MINUSTAH peacekeeping station contaminated the country's main river, the Artibonite.[114] The country has yet to fully recover, due to both the severity of the damage Haiti endured in 2010, as well as a government that was ineffective well before the earthquake."

"In 2013, Haiti called for European nations to pay reparations for slavery and establish an official commission for the settlement of past wrongdoings. "

"On 4 October 2016, Hurricane Matthew made landfall near Les Anglais, making it the worst hurricane to strike the nation since Hurricane Cleo in 1964. The storm brought deadly winds and rain which left Haiti with a large amount of damage to be repaired. With all of the resources in the country destroyed, Haiti received aid from the United Nations of around US$120 million. The death total was approximately 3,000. Thousands of people were displaced due to damage to infrastructure. Also, the cholera outbreak has been growing since the storm hit Haiti. With additional flooding after the storm, cholera continued to spread beyond the control of officials. The storm also caused damage to hospitals and roads which created a larger problem in helping victims and moving resources. The devastation and damage that Hurricane Matthew caused was unpredictable and left Haiti in a state of emergency."

It is understandable that Haitians should feel that they are victims of crimes committed by others.

The Cholera Epidemic of 2010 has been blamed on MINUSTAH, which is the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti. See: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minustah/

I am not sure any of it is due to Global Warming