Closing the Mitigation Gap
Article
Current proposals from the United States and European Union for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 relative to 1990 levels would result in industrialised countries reducing emissions by between 10 and 25 per cent if replicated across this group as a whole. Even at the top end of this range, a significant 2020 'mitigation gap' would have opened up against the reductions necessary to stay on track for a halving of global emissions by 2050.
This paper - the first by the newly formed Global Climate Network - spells out what is perhaps the greatest policy challenge of our age: on the one hand, current proposals for 2020 emissions cuts in industrialised countries are insufficient to ensure that global reductions are kept on track for a halving or better by 2050. Yet on the other, developing countries are unlikely to accept the substantial costs associated with closing the resulting mitigation gap while their levels of wealth and per capita usage of energy are still comparatively low.
The paper features new analysis commissioned by the Global Climate Network which shows that a 'mitigation gap' could open up and undermine the credibility of a post-2012 regime that has the aim of avoiding dangerous climate change.
For more infomation please visit www.globalclimatenetwork.info
Related items
Taken to heart: Inequalities in heart disease in Scotland
More than 7.6 million people across the UK live with cardiovascular disease (CVD), around twice as many as live with Alzheimer’s disease and cancer combined.Skills passports: An essential part of a fair transition
This month, government will publish its Clean Energy Workforce Strategy. This plan covers two aims. First, filling the growing demand for skills in clean energy industries is essential to keep on track to reach the government’s clean power…Fixing the leak: How to end the £22 billion annual taxpayer losses at the Bank of England
The Bank of England increased its interest rates over recent years, aimed at reducing inflation. But this has also had an unintended effect on the Bank of England’s massive government bond buying – ‘quantitative easing’ – programme.