How Separate Climate Targets Can Help Avoid Overreliance on Carbon Removal shannon.paton@… Tue, 08/06/2024 - 08:40

The science is clear: To achieve its climate goals, the global community will need to reach net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by midcentury. Meeting that target will require deep and rapid emissions reductions in addition to large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Activities that remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere range from natural, conventional approaches like growing trees to more novel, technological approaches like direct air capture and carbon mineralization.

CDR is necessary for meeting our climate goals, but it must complement, not replace, the steep emissions reductions that would come with switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, electrifying transport and reducing deforestation. These efforts to reduce emissions must play by far the biggest part in reaching global mitigation goals.

Carbon removal, however, will be key to counterbalancing “residual emissions” from sources that are challenging to abate, such as some industrial sub-sectors, as well as aviation and agriculture. And once we achieve net zero, carbon removal is the only way to reduce elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 from our past emissions and reverse some of the climate-induced damage we’re already seeing at more than 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) of warming.

Despite scientific clarity around the respective roles of emissions reduction and carbon removal in delivering a net-zero, and ultimately a net-negative future, some oil and gas companies and countries have indicated that they view carbon removal as a way to delay the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Without strong guardrails, CDR could impede emissions reductions, a concern known as moral hazard or mitigation deterrence that is particularly relevant as countries are developing long-term plans for how to reach net zero.

Countries setting net-zero and long-term climate targets can help address this risk by setting separate targets for emissions reduction and carbon removal in the long-term strategies (LTSs) and nationally determined contributions (NDCs) they submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as well as for their net economy-wide mitigation targets. Clarifying CDR’s role in this way can help provide transparency and allow for scrutiny around the relative levels of both carbon removal and emissions reduction.

What Are “Separate Targets” and How Do They Relate to Carbon Removal?

“Separate targets” refers to the idea that countries, or other actors, can set separate targets for gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and for carbon removal scale-up by a certain year. This contrasts with the current norm of setting a single net target that combines reductions and removals into an overall number without separating their relative contributions. Separate targets can be put forward under this economy-wide target as an extra layer of specificity to provide greater transparency around how climate targets will be met and how emissions reductions and removals will be balanced to meet that target. This can help ensure that carbon removal doesn’t detract from emission reductions and avoid an overreliance on CDR.

For this reason, setting separate targets has been a key recommendation in WRI analyses on international carbon removal governance and designing net-zero targets. NGOs, academics, companies and others have also recommended this approach to enable the responsible use of carbon removal. The IPCC’s sixth assessment report also pointed to separate targets, and sub-targets for different types of CDR, to avoid substituting carbon removals for emission reductions.

Because novel, technological carbon removal approaches typically provide greater certainty of long-duration removal than conventional, nature-based approaches, some NGOs have also proposed three targets: one for emissions reductions; one for carbon removal from conventional approaches like trees and soils; and one for carbon removal from more novel approaches, such as direct air capture or enhanced mineralization. It’s important to note  that many countries already distinguish between emissions and conventional removals from the land sector in their national inventory reporting, but they may not be setting a separate target for conventional removal.

This approach allows for transparency around the expected permanence, or duration of carbon sequestration, of each type of removal. It would also allow for “like for like” compensation, where removals that geologically sequester CO2, with a permanence level of thousands of years, compensate for fossil fuel emissions, which stay in the atmosphere for up to thousands of years. Simultaneously, emissions from biogenic carbon stocks like trees and soils would be compensated for by carbon removal approaches which result in storage of CO2 in biological pools.

Other proposed formulations include setting separate targets by sector, which can also provide transparency around relative levels of reduction and removal, and setting separate targets for reduction and removal in addition to complementary and more specific targets, such as reducing fossil fuel production.

Target Type(s)

Example

For illustrative purposes, we assume Country A’s 2015 emissions are 500 MtCO2

One economy-wide net targetCountry A will reduce net emissions by 95% from 2015 levels by 2050.Two separate targets

Within the economy-wide 95% net emissions reduction, Country A will:

• • reduce gross emissions by 90% from 2015 levels by 2050; and
• • remove 25 MtCO2/yr by 2050 from both conventional and novel CDR approaches (to account for the remaining 5% net emissions reduction).

Three separate targets

Within the economy-wide 95% net emissions reduction, Country A will:

• • reduce gross emissions by 90% from 2015 levels by 2050; and
• • enhance land-based carbon sinks to take up 20 MtCO2/yr by 2050; and
• • remove 5 MtCO2/yr from novel CDR by 2050.

Sectoral targets

Within the economy-wide 95% net emissions reduction, Country A will reduce emissions in the:

• • energy sector by 95% from 2015 levels by 2050.
• • waste sector by 75% from 2015 levels by 2050.
• • industrial sector by 55% from 2015 levels by 2050.
• • agriculture sector by 60% from 2015 levels by 2050.
• • land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) by 80% from 2015 levels by 2050.

and remove:

• • 10 MtCO2/yr in the agriculture sector by 2050.
• • 30 MtCO2/yr in LULUCF sector by 2050.
• • 10 MtCO2/yr from novel CDR by 2050.

Virtually all countries already communicate their emission reduction targets to the international community through NDCs every five years and through LTSs, which outline climate plans by midcentury. These commitments are useful avenues for countries to propose separate targets, especially as they increasingly express interest in including novel carbon removal in their climate planning.

Mitigation Deterrence and the Risk of Overreliance on Carbon Removal

Mitigation deterrence is the concern that the use of carbon removal can shift focus away from the urgent need to reduce GHG emissions and transition away from fossil fuels. The potential for overreliance on CDR increases this concern. More specifically, relying too heavily on CDR is risky for several reasons.

Technology development uncertainty

Carbon removal technologies are still in development, and many have not been deployed at large scale. It may turn out that they can’t deliver the expected level of removal needed, so overreliance on CDR, in place of emissions reduction, would not only mean a failure to reach CDR goals, but would also jeopardize emissions reduction targets.

Non-equivalent impacts on climate and other systems

Emitting CO2 now and removing it later is not the same as not emitting CO2 to begin with. GHG emissions can cause irreversible damage to ecosystems and human health for the time they’re in the atmosphere, particularly as we cross large-scale climate tipping points. Additionally, the environmental and social impacts of novel carbon removal approaches at scale are not yet sufficiently understood, in comparison to the well-understood net benefits of reducing emissions. Reducing emissions now can also bring different types of co-benefits, depending on the sector, like reducing air pollution and increasing biodiversity. Carbon removal processes generally do not provide a similar level of co-benefits. Lastly, one would expect a large increase in CO2 emissions and an equivalent amount of CO2 removal to have the same magnitude (though opposite directionality) of climate impact. However, research shows this is not the case, and the lack of equivalence increases as the magnitude of positive or negative flux of CO2 increases. This asymmetry in response is mainly due to how the ocean and land sinks respond to changes in atmospheric CO2.

Resource constraints

Carbon removal approaches use varying levels of resources like renewable power, land area and water, and, in some cases, materials like biomass, chemicals, steel, cement and more. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, for instance, can use plants grown specifically for energy, which can compete with other land uses and negatively impact food security, biodiversity, and water availability. Meanwhile, direct air capture requires a significant amount of energy. Because of these resource constraints, in addition to the limited availability of well-characterized geologic carbon sequestration capacity and geographic applicability of certain approaches, carbon removal should be considered a limited resource. 

If carbon removal compensates for emissions that are not residual or could otherwise be reduced, we risk either missing our net-zero goals or needing a larger overall amount of CDR to meet net-zero goals, which would further exacerbate resource constraints. And if the limited amount of CDR available is used to compensate for so-called luxury emissions —those emissions that can otherwise be reduced — there is risk of effectively limiting the pool of carbon removal available to address residual emissions that are harder to abate. If the use of CDR is not restricted, it will be more difficult to reach net-negative emissions, as CDR is the only way to bring global temperatures back down after an overshoot past 1.5 or 2 degrees C (2.7 to 3.6 degrees F).

Separate Targets Can Address the Risk of Carbon Removal Overreliance

Setting separate targets, along with accountability mechanisms to track progress toward long-term and intermediate targets, can help address risks around carbon removal overreliance in the follwing ways.

Providing transparency

By setting separate targets, governments would communicate how much carbon removal they plan to rely on, creating transparency around the relative levels of CDR and emissions reduction. To substantiate and justify the level of planned reliance on carbon removal, governments would ideally define and quantify the levels of emissions that are very challenging to abate, due to technological or economic constraints, and would need to be counterbalanced by carbon removal. With one target, however, scenarios for reaching net-zero emissions that involve carbon removal would be treated equally regardless of whether that use is at a low or high level, despite their varying impacts on climate and other systems.

Clarifying the lack of equivalence between different types of CDR approaches

Carbon accounting today generally treats all tons equally, meaning that emissions from burning fossil fuels can be offset by carbon sequestration in biological carbon pools, such as forests. However, such an equivalence is flawed because conventional carbon removal approaches typically only sequester carbon for decades to centuries, while the CO2 emitted through the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Recognizing this disparity, there have been calls for separate targets among removals, where conventional carbon removal approaches may only compensate for land-based emissions, and novel, technological carbon removal approaches, that sequester carbon for much longer timescales (more than a thousand years), may only compensate for residual fossil emissions.

Creating policy clarity

By setting separate targets for reductions and removals, governments can send clear and actionable long-term policy signals to companies, investors, and other actors about the role of carbon removal to complement emission reductions. Such signals can provide clarity about a government’s anticipated scale-up of carbon removal and what will be required to support it (e.g., measuring, reporting, and verification systems, durable storage capacity, and renewable energy capacity to power removal facilities). Clear target setting that communicates about future capacity needs can inform near-term policy, lay the foundation for achieving long-term targets, and help ensure that CDR's likely limited capacity is allocated to the best uses that help meet those targets.

Where Separate Targets Have Been Discussed or Enacted

Separate targets for emission reductions and carbon removal have already been proposed, or put in place, at the regional, national and sub-national levels, as well as in the private sector.

ScopeJurisdictionTarget textRegionalEuropean UnionThe European Union’s proposed 2040 target aims to reduce emissions 90% relative to 1990 emissions. Documentation supporting the target states that the EU expects to rely on up to 400 MtCO2/yr of removal from LULUCF and “industrial removals” by 2040.NationalSwedenSweden’s long-term strategy is to reach net zero by 2045, reducing emissions by 85% relative to 1990 emissions. It plans to meet the remaining 15% through conventional CDR approaches, BECCS and emission reductions in other countries.Sub-nationalCaliforniaA 2022 law mandates California meet net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 and requires the state to reduce emissions 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. The remaining mitigation needed to achieve net zero is expected to be addressed with carbon removal.WashingtonThe state set a 95% greenhouse gas emission reduction goal by 2050, and also committed to reach net-zero that year. The remaining mitigation needed is expected to be addressed with carbon removal.Private sectorScience Based Targets initiativeThe initiative, which validates corporate climate commitments, released its Corporate Net-Zero Standard in 2021 and is in the process of updating it. The current version states that companies setting targets aligned with its standards need to reduce emissions by 90–95% and neutralize the remaining emissions that cannot be eliminated using permanent carbon removal. 

These examples – and others which are continuing to emerge – demonstrate the diversity of strategies that countries, sub-national actors and companies are using to clarify their intended future reductions and removals.

Challenges of Setting and Implementing Separate Targets

While setting separate targets would reduce mitigation deterrence, clarify policy needs and illuminate the lack of equivalence both between removals and emission reductions and among different types of carbon removal, it also presents some challenges.

Defining residual emissions

To set a separate target for CDR (or one for conventional and one for novel removals), governments will need some way to determine what that target level is. One option is to estimate the expected level of residual emissions at net zero, or in a certain year, and set a CDR target equivalent to that. Some countries are already doing this by including estimations of residual emissions in their long-term strategies, while other countries may use different methods.

While tying a target for CDR to an expected level of residual emissions may substantiate a certain level of CDR, it can be challenging because there is no consistent definition for residual emissions. It is a subjective decision each country will make depending on geography, development status, politics and other factors. This makes it difficult to assess which of the residual emissions identified are hard to abate and which are inconvenient for countries or other actors to reduce. What we consider to be residual emissions will also likely decrease over time, as we develop and improve emission reduction technologies, but this can be hard to anticipate in long-term climate planning.

Of the 72 countries that have submitted long-term strategies, 26 have included estimates of residual emissions. While most industrialized countries that include these estimations project residual emissions of around 5% to 15% in 2050, countries like Canada and Australia included a much larger range of future scenarios, from 17% to 44% for Canada and 36% to 52% for Australia. Such high levels of residual emissions indicate a planned overreliance on carbon removal, representing a real risk of mitigation deterrence.

Countries could approach target setting in a different way by quantifying the level of CDR they could feasibly deploy over a certain period and set a CDR target to match that. Though, given CDR’s role as a complement to emissions reductions, it would ideally not be scaled up as much as is feasible, but as much as is truly needed.

Setting up infrastructure to support separate targets

Creating separate targets for emissions reductions and carbon removal under an economy-wide target would require separate incentives, tracking and monitoring regimes, and data reporting. Currently, the vast majority of carbon credits come from emissions reduction or avoidance, but carbon removal credits are beginning to be bought and sold as well. International cooperation via buying and selling of carbon (and carbon removal) credits is allowed under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Countries would need to track trading of credits against their economy-wide target, but also track progress toward removal targets for additional clarity. The IPCC provides inventory accounting guidance for emissions and land-based removals, and is developing guidance for novel CDR in the coming years.

It will also be critical to set interim targets for both emissions reduction and carbon removal to provide accountability around progress toward meeting the longer-term separate targets.

What’s Next for Separate Targets?

With the next round of NDCs due to be submitted by February 2025, as well as a renewed call at COP28 for submission or revision of long-term strategies by November 2024, countries face a pivotal opportunity to increase the ambition and transparency of their near- and long-term climate plans. In developing these plans, countries should consider the extent to which they intend to rely on carbon removal and develop separate targets for carbon removal and emissions reductions to provide transparency and ensure that carbon removal is not delaying urgently needed ambition to reduce emissions.

climeworks-mammoth-direct-air-capture-facility.jpg Climate carbon removal long-term strategies International Climate Action NDC net-zero emissions GHG emissions Climate Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Carbon Removal

Authors Katie Lebling Danielle Riedl Clea Schumer

What Are Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Why Are They Important? margaret.overh… Mon, 08/05/2024 - 13:52

The impacts of climate change have been on stark display this year, from severe flooding in Brazil and East Africa to droughts in Mexico and Europe and wildfires in Canada. Record-breaking heat has claimed lives around the world. These disasters are evidence that the world has not yet done nearly enough to halt the climate crisis.

But it's not too late. Scientists say it is still possible to avoid the most devastating impacts if we change course now. While countries are making headway in key areas — electric vehicle sales continue to climb, and renewables made up 86% of new energy additions in 2023 — keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) will require more and faster action on every front. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must peak immediately and decline rapidly to reach net zero by mid-century.

A pivotal opportunity to achieve this goal is approaching in 2025. That's when the next round of national climate commitments — known as "nationally determined contributions" or NDCs — are due. These plans will detail countries' intended climate actions through 2035. Delivering more ambitious NDCs in this cycle is a critical step toward limiting global warming and securing a safer and more livable future for everyone.

So, what exactly are NDCs? And why are they so critical to halting climate change?

1) What Are Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)?

NDCs lay out how each country will contribute to the global temperature goals outlined under the Paris Agreement. They detail countries' plans to slash GHG emissions and help limit global warming to "well below" 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), with efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). Many NDCs also include measures to build resilience to climate impacts, such as drought and sea-level rise, and provide information on the finance needed to achieve their commitments.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to submit new NDCs every five years that reflect their "highest possible ambition." Countries are meant to strengthen their commitments in each round of NDCs based on the latest climate science.

Most countries submitted initial emissions targets prior to adopting the Paris Agreement in 2015. As of June 2024, most countries had put forth new or updated NDCs with 2030 targets — but only some of these include more ambitious emissions reductions. The next round of NDCs, with 2035 target dates, is due by early 2025.

2) Why Are NDCs Important for Fighting Climate Change?

Combating the climate crisis will require fundamental changes throughout society, from how we power homes and vehicles to how we produce food or design cities. At the same time, the world must scale up efforts to help communities — especially the most vulnerable — adapt to the changes they are already experiencing. While these actions may be driven by global goals like the Paris Agreement, they are usually planned and carried out at the local or national level.

That's where NDCs come in.

NDCs are the main vehicle for countries to collectively address climate change. They translate international climate agreements into concrete targets and measures that countries will work toward over the next 10 years. Under the Paris Agreement, countries are required to pursue emissions reductions with the aim of meeting their NDC targets and to report on their progress.

NDCs also establish political support for specific climate actions, sending an important signal about the country's commitment to a zero-carbon future. This can help drive the social and economic changes needed to meet national climate goals, including spurring investment from a wide variety of sources (public, private, national and international).

In addition, NDCs can contribute to achieving countries' longer-term climate and development priorities. For example, near-term actions to reduce emissions laid out in a country's NDC should align with any mid-century net-zero targets in its "long-term low-emissions development strategy" (LT-LEDS). NDCs can also support the implementation of countries' National Adaptation Plans, such as by outlining actions to make key sectors, like energy and agriculture, more resilient to climate shocks.

3) Are Current NDCs Enough to Tackle Climate Change?

Countries have made meaningful strides on climate action since 2015, but their current commitments still aren't nearly ambitious enough to match the scale of the climate crisis. Far from limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F), the actions outlined in existing NDCs are on track for a catastrophic 2.5-2.9 degrees C (4.5-5.2 degrees F) of warming by 2100.

Keeping temperature rise in check will require immediate action to transform every economic sector, including rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels. However, fewer than half of the current NDCs contain measures explicitly related to fossil fuel consumption, and only 11 include measures to phase out or end fossil fuel use. The number of NDCs with targets for high-emitting sectors like energy, transportation and agriculture has grown — but their ambition is a mixed bag. And some countries lack sector-specific targets altogether.

Most developing countries now include NDC measures related to adaptation, referencing how they will help vulnerable communities build resilience to climate change impacts. But they often lack adequate finance and tracking mechanisms to ensure these plans come to fruition. Developed nations generally don't include adaptation measures.

Finally, countries are not taking enough action to meet even their existing targets. Current actions will likely result in higher emissions in 2030 than the NDCs imply, revealing a significant implementation gap that countries must work to close.

4) What Should Countries Include in Their 2025 NDCs?

2025 offers a pivotal opportunity for countries to submit more ambitious NDCs that will limit warming to 1.5 degrees C and ensure a climate-resilient future for all people. But what could that look like on paper?

Experts at WRI have identified five urgent priorities for the next generation of NDCs:

• Ambitious 2030 and 2035 emissions-reduction targets in line with net-zero goals and 1.5 C. All countries should do more on this front, but high-emitting nations in particular need to demonstrate much stronger leadership on rapidly reducing emissions by 2035. This marks the halfway point between when countries submitted their first NDCs in 2020 and when many have committed to reach net-zero emissions, around 2050. That means it's a key time to align near- and mid-term actions with long-term objectives. NDCs should also include specific targets for short-lived but highly potent greenhouse gases such as methane.
• Stronger targets in key sectors like energy and food systems. All countries should set ambitious, detailed and time-bound targets for carbon-intensive sectors — from energy and transportation to food, agriculture and land. Such targets can help send a clearer signal to governments, companies and investors than economy-wide targets alone. 2025 NDCs should commit to rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels, scaling up renewable energy, adopting zero-emissions transport, reducing food waste, and investing in low-carbon, climate-resilient farming practices, among other measures.
• More robust measures to adapt to escalating climate impacts. Climate risks like storms, wildfires and extreme heat are escalating faster than expected. The next round of NDCs should enhance actions to make communities, economies and ecosystems more resilient to these impacts. They should also do more to address loss and damage from climate change that goes beyond what communities can realistically adapt to.
• Policies to catalyze investment and spur implementation. Setting goals is just the first step; NDCs must also spell out how countries will implement their national climate plans. This will take a whole-of-government approach involving a range of ministries and subnational governments. It will also require policies to stimulate investment in climate action and align finance from various sources and actors, including the private sector.
• A stronger focus on people and communities. The shift to a zero-carbon, climate-resilient economy can create millions of jobs, reduce pollution, improve human health and generate myriad other benefits for people everywhere. But countries must carefully design their transition plans to fairly distribute benefits and avoid negative outcomes, like job losses or displacement. The next round of NDCs needs to see all countries embrace these "just transition" principles in all climate commitments.

5) What Support Do Developing Countries Need to Implement Their NDCs?

Implementing NDCs requires significant financial investments. While climate finance can stem from a variety of sources, including domestic public funds and private investors, developing countries also require support from international sources like developments banks and climate funds.

It's well established that developing countries require far more funding than current levels to adopt green technologies and build resilience to the worsening climate crisis. Indeed, many developing country NDCs include "conditional" climate pledges, which they intend to achieve only with international support. Of the $4.5 trillion developing countries say they'll need, cumulatively, to implement their NDCs, $1.6 trillion represents conditional pledges. And this is only a partial estimate; not all developing countries currently include finance requirements in their NDCs. In comparison to this $1.6 trillion, developed countries are currently committed to mobilizing $100 billion per year in support through 2025.

Climate negotiators will meet at the UN climate summit in Baku this November (COP29) to come up with a new global climate finance goal and begin addressing this major disconnect. The new goal must take into account the needs and priorities of developing countries, as agreed at COP21 in 2015.

In addition to more finance, developed countries have committed to providing technical assistance and technology transfer to support developing countries' climate action.

Technical assistance involves connecting developing countries with experts and resources to help them develop and implement their NDCs. Training programs can share knowledge and build capacity to help developing countries adopt effective approaches to advance climate solutions.

Technology transfer involves developed countries sharing clean technologies and relevant know-how with developing nations to support their low-carbon transitions; for example, by helping them obtain licenses to use patented technologies.

In a neighborhood near Cape Town, South Africa, a man walks down a flooded street after days of heavy rainfall in June 2022. As climate-related disasters become more frequent and severe, countries need more finance to address both the causes and the impacts of climate change. Photo by brazzo/iStock 6) How Do NDCs Relate to the Broader UN Climate Negotiations?

Although NDCs are developed at the country level, they are closely linked to international climate talks. There are mechanisms within the UN climate negotiations that are meant to both inform countries' NDC development and transparently track their progress toward meeting the Paris Agreement's goals.

The Global Stocktake, for example, assesses the world's collective progress on climate change every five years and is specifically intended to guide countries' NDC development. The first Global Stocktake in 2023 called on countries to transition away from fossil fuels and scale up renewable energy, among other things. These goals must inform the NDCs that countries submit in early 2025.

Countries also submit biennial transparency reports that analyze how they are progressing on implementing their NDCs, including efforts to reduce emissions and ramp up adaptation action. These can also communicate the level of financial, technical or technological support countries need or are providing.

In addition, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) routinely publishes NDC Synthesis Reports that combine information from all NDCs to assess progress and identify gaps in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.

7) Are NDCs Mandatory and Legally Binding?

Under the Paris Agreement, countries are obligated to have an NDC and to pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of fulfilling their commitments. While they are not legally bound to achieve their NDCs, countries have various responsibilities under the Agreement that are meant to lay the groundwork for meeting their targets.

For example, each country must submit a new or updated NDC every five years that is more ambitious than its last. The agreement clearly states that developed countries should take the lead by pursuing economy-wide emissions reductions, while developing countries should "continue enhancing" their mitigation efforts to the extent that they are able. Countries are also asked to promote transparency around implementation efforts, with developed countries required to track and report on emissions reductions.

In addition, many countries — such as the United Kingdom and Chile — have enshrined their climate commitments in nationally binding laws and regulations.

Learn more about the Paris Agreement's legal structure here.

8) Where Can I Learn More About Countries' Previous and Latest NDCs?

WRI has developed a variety of resources to learn more about countries' NDCs and how to implement them. For instance:

• Climate Watch's NDC Explorer offers a comprehensive and searchable database of each country's NDC. The tool includes over 150 structured indicators which allow users to explore every aspect of NDCs, including how they reference adaptation, finance, mitigation, loss and damage and different sectors.
• The Next Generation NDCs resource hub offers resources and webinars to help countries develop their next NDCs, including guidance on setting sector-specific targets and how NDCs can align with long-term climate strategies.
• WRI's Paying for Paris resource hub provides a collection of resources to help countries understand how to finance their NDCs.

Ahead of the COP29 climate summit, World Resources Institute will launch a "2025 NDC Tracker" that will allow users to track which countries have submitted new NDCs and how much they could collectively reduce emissions compared to the previous round of NDCs.

gaomei-wetlands-windmills.jpg Climate NDC Climate National Climate Action GHG emissions adaptation climate finance COP29 Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Next Generation NDCs
• National Climate Action

Authors Maggie Overholt Rhys Gerholdt Jamal Srouji Natalia Alayza