1/n At #COP26, UNEP Gap report authors, when questioned at their session today, claimed that their assessments are "value-neutral". They don't include "fairness" and "equity" in their assessment as it is subjective!! But that's not all...
2/n Here is what they do. They put the G20 countries in one table with no distinction between the Annex-1 and non-Annex-1, G20 parties. The differences in some of these countries in terms of per capita capita energy use, emissions, and incomes is HUGE! But that's not all...
3/n They then construct a linear path from 2020 till the declared year of net-zero emissions of these countries, with reductions starting in 2020. Why a linear path? Because....just! "It's a benchmark" they said when questioned....
4/n Never mind that a linear reduction from 2020 till 2050 for the USA and EU already constitutes a disproportionate grab of the remaining carbon budget by them, not even taking their historical emissions into account. But that's not all...
5/n They then add another line that shows the trajectory from 2020 to 2030 based on declared NDCs and then a linear reduction onward from 2030 till respectively declared net-zero years. And...
6/n If such a trajectory is above the linear "benchmark", they call it delayed action. If it is below, they call it accelerated action. And this is uniform for all countries assessed irrespective of how rich or poor they are or their historical emissions ! But that's not all...
7/n Even after constructing these trajectories they do not tell you implied cumulative emissions, even though by their own admission (only when questioned), net zero is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition to determine whether warming stays below 1.5 or 2 deg. C....
8/n For that the measure is the carbon budget. They then go on to say that those above the "benchmark" need to enhance their NDCs. Obviously the Annex-1 parties who are required to reduce their emissions in absolute terms are likely to be in the "accelerated" category.
9/n Never mind that some of them are decidedly NOT. Most notably, Canada and Japan. The EU and US happen to have pledged to be (not actually are) on a linear path to net-zero by 2050. This constitutes a disproportionate grab of even the remaining carbon budget.
10/n But the focus is not that at all! Despite claims to "value neutrality", this representation validates this disproportionate grab by Annex-I countries and focuses negatively on the non-Annex-I countries assessed who are the ones likely to be above the "benchmark" trajectory.
11/n So implication is that these non-Annex-I countries, India among them, will be exhorted to start reducing emissions sooner so that they match this linear benchmark. Value-neutral indeed!
12/n They answered one question implicitly, without making any explicit reference to it - "Do scientists have time for equity?" @JMauskar @bahardutt @n_thanki @UNEP @moefcc @HarryWinkler @JoeriRogelj @NavrozDubash @tjayaraman @3rdworldnetwork
In answer to the last question, the reply was...🤷SILENCE
@threadreaderapp please unroll
An additional point that should be explicitly made. Thanks @JMauskar. The UNEP has taken to using G20 as a category for these assessments for the last few years. This is against the UNFCCC which differentiates between parties based on responsibility & capability. CBDR & RC!!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
