A decade of insufficient political action on climate change means that nations must now do four times the work — or do the same in one-third of the time — to comply with the climate pact they made in Paris, argue Niklas Höhne and colleagues in a Comment piece in Nature. The authors’ conclusions are based on a synthesis of all ten editions of the Emissions Gap Report produced by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Each year for the past ten years, this report has examined the difference (the ‘gap’) between what countries have pledged to do individually to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and what they need to do collectively to meet agreed temperature goals. Höhne and co-authors find that the required emissions cuts from 2020 to 2030 are now more than 7% per year on average for the 1.5 °C temperature limit set in Paris and 3% for 2°C. Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required to meet the emissions levels for 2 °C would have been 2% per year, on average. The time window for halving global emissions has also narrowed: today it is 10 years for 1.5 °C and 25 years for 2°C; it would have been 30 years in 2010. Some countries, regions, cities and businesses have promised or implemented urgently needed climate action, however. For example, 76 countries or regions and 14 subnational regions or states have set or even implemented net-zero emissions goals. Closing the gap will require scaling up these few success stories and mirroring them with progress in every sector.
Suggested Citation: Niklas Höhne, Michel den Elzen, Joeri Rogelj, Bert Metz, Taryn Fransen, Takeshi Kuramochi, Anne Olhoff, Joseph Alcamo, Harald Winkler, Sha Fu, Michiel Schaeffer, Roberto Schaeffer, Glen P. Peters, Simon Maxwell, and Navroz K. Dubash. 2020. “Emissions: world has four times the work or one-third of the time.” Nature 579: 25-28. 10.1038/d41586-020-00571-x.
In less than two decades, new viruses that were thought to have been controlled have re-emerged worldwide. Socially disadvantaged individuals and urban health inequities may help spread such diseases. Just as social sciences originally used diseases as a powerful prism to study inequalities in urban areas, there is now a case for using social sciences to analyse and solve global health issues.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) published the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020 in the Official Gazette on 11 April 2020. If brought into force, it will replace the existing EIA Notification 2006. It has met with widespread public opposition. According to some reports, the Environment Ministry has received 17 lakh representations in response, and politicians across party lines have strongly opposed the draft. In this essay, Shibani Ghosh provides a brief overview of the environment clearance process under the EIA notification, and discusses four principal reasons why the 2020 draft is misconceived and should be withdrawn. She then contextualizes these reasons within the broader regulatory landscape of the 2006 notification. As India awaits far-reaching regulatory reforms, Ghosh proposes four ways in which the existing regulatory framework can be strengthened to achieve significant environmental and social gains.
Since the liberalization of India’s economy beginning in the early 1990’s, the government has increasingly employed contract workers to perform various state functions, including in the education sector. Yet, little research has been done to examine how courts have reacted to this shift in government labour policy. This article looks at all reported cases involving contract teachers in the Indian Supreme Court and four High Courts over the last thirty years. It finds that although almost never explicitly overturning precedent, the judiciary in India has increasingly become less sympathetic to contract teachers demands, particularly at the Supreme Court level. The article then argues that the Court could use its power of judicial review to engage the government in a dialogue, not unlike some of its earlier decisions in the 1980s and early 1990s. The Court can help guide the government to create a labour policy that not only achieve better results for students, but better working conditions for teachers. Such a dialogic approach could potentially be adopted to help reframe the government’s contract labour policy more generally.
This article examines the policy and institutional constraints on smallholder adoption of groundwater irrigation practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. The analysis departs from the unilateral focus on the promotion of technologies and probes not only the issues of groundwater governance but also those policies related to other enabling factors such as access to credit, energy and agricultural pricing policies and land-tenure security. The paper argues that the region may be missing an opportunity by not ensuring at least neutral policy towards agricultural groundwater development and addressing other constraints which hold back not only agricultural groundwater use but smallholder agriculture development in general.
Since the dawn of the intergovernmental dialogue on climate change, countries have bickered over who should take responsibility, in what measure and under what conditions to avert climate change. At the heart of these questions in the ongoing negotiations on the post-2012 climate regime is the notion of “differentiation.” The Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (FCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, differentiate between developing and industrialized countries, and assign a leadership role in mitigation to industrialized countries. Should the post-2012 climate regime differentiate between developing countries, based on “objective criterion,” in determining who, amongst them, should take greater responsibility, perhaps even akin to the responsibility that industrialized countries have currently assumed?
Abstract: The climate regime, comprising the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, contains elements of prescription for and leadership of developed countries and differentiation in favor of developing countries. The nature and extent of differentiation in favor of developing countries in the climate regime, however, has remained contentious through the years.While there is a shared understanding among states that they have common but differentiated responsibilities in addressing climate change, there is little agreement on the formulae for differentiating between states in doing so. This Article argues that the outcomes of international climate negotiations in recent years, in particular the Copenhagen Accord of 2009 and the Cancun Agreements of 2010, offer a distinctive vision of differential treatment. Through these instruments, the international community appears to be moving from differentiation in favor of developing countries towards differentiation or flexibility for all countries, as well as towards increasing parallelism between developed and developing countries. The Durban Platform of 2011,which launches a new process to negotiate a post-2020 agreement, confirms this trend, setting the scene for the erosion of differential treatment in the future/post-2020 climate regime. This Article explores the nature of differentiation, as it is evolving, in the emerging climate regime, in particular as it relates to mitigation obligations, and the impact this is likely to have on the design, ambition, reach and rigor of the emerging climate regime.
Differential treatment in international environmental law is the broader manifestation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. It reflects equity concerns that have underlain most environmental debates on a North-South basis for several decades. Over the past couple of decades, different forms of differentiation have been introduced in environmental law instruments to the point where it has become an essential element of any international environmental agreement. At the same time, differential treatment has also been the object of sustained criticism arguing that it should be temporary, fails to target beneficiaries appropriately and undermines environmental outcomes. This article takes the opposite view and argues that differentiation remains crucial in a world where widespread inequalities remain, that beneficiaries need to be identified on the basis of environmental and social indicators and that differentiation constitutes the basis on which environmental measures are adopted. Worsening environmental conditions and an evolving global context call for adding new elements to the existing framework for differentiation. This requires thinking beyond the current structure centred around nation states and conceptualise differentiation around common heritage equity. This also requires expanding differentiation beyond the field of environmental law to include all areas of sustainable development law. Further, differential treatment needs to be implemented in such a way that it benefits the most disadvantaged in every country. These measures are necessary to foster a vibrant international environmental law that addresses the equity needs of all states in years to come.
Ecological fiscal transfers (EFTs) involve higher levels of government distributing funds to lower levels of government based on ecological indicators. In 2015 India established the world’s largest system of EFTs when its 14th Finance Commission added forest cover to the formula that determines the amount of tax revenue the Union government distributes annually to each state. Here we gather state-by-state data on forestry budgets to assess whether India’s EFTs incentivized states to protect and restore forests as evidenced by increases to their forestry budgets.
