Rankings for Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth Decoupling
79
country is part of those that submitted their “intended nationally determined contribution” (INDC) for the pre-Paris 2015 Summit and is one of the first nations that
elaborated a “nationally determined contribution" (NDC) after the Paris Agreement
(PA) was signed.
Argentina presented the INDC as a fixed goal (a certain amount of emissions
is committed to 2030), but its justification includes a percentage reduction of the
projected emissions of a scenario without climate policies, or BAU for business as
usual).
6 The argument used to support this choice is that this metric is the usual
one for developing countries. However, that is not entirely correct. Several of our
neighbors did not opt for such type of goals. For example, Chile and Uruguay chose
emission intensity targets, while Brazil opted for absolute reductions anchored in the
past.
The contribution of Argentina within the PA is that it commits to emit no more than
483 or 369 MtCO 2 -e depending on receiving or not international financial assistance.
This means a reduction of its aggregate emissions by 18% with respect to BAU by
2030 (i.e., 592–483/592), taking emissions without policies whose projection begins
in 2005. If Argentina received financial aid to undertake more mitigation measures,
total reductions would reach 37% (i.e., 592–369/592).
The text of the NDC states that Argentina’s contribution is fair and ambitious
considering the data of the last report of the emissions gap (UNEP 2016). The rationale is that Argentina’s net emissions in 2014 are 0.7% of global GHG emissions
(ie., 369/52,700 MtCO 2 e) while the country contributes its unconditional target with
a 2.8% of the reductions committed by all countries to comply with the Paris Agreement (i.e., 109/3900). For this reason, it is said that their participation in contributions
is four times (0.7 * 4 = 2.8) the participation in the emissions. Another statement
included in the NDC text is that the unconditional and total reductions are 0.6% and
1.3%, respectively, of the effort necessary to close the gap between the emissions
foreseen for 2030 with current policies and those that are needed to reach the goal
of the two degrees. However, making an account of the participation in emissions
when the unconditional goals of all countries are met, Argentina’s participation in
2030 would be 0.87% (483/55,500). This is more than the 0.7% that the country
participated in 2014 in the total emissions, but it is the comparison that should be
used to justify the fair and ambitious without using the BAU scenario. This would
be the correct way if the target, as Argentinean authorities defend, is a fixed target
and not one that depends on the BAU scenario.
Despite these justifications, both the unconditional INDC and the NDC of
Argentina were considered insufficient by the international community. In particular,
a think tank formed by several institutions of international prestige, which is dedicated to monitoring national contributions (see),
stated that, despite the improvements introduced to the goal by the new government,
it is “critically insufficient.”
6 This has not always been the case. The country designed a contribution that depended on GDP in
1999 (see Barros and Conte Grand 2002).
79
country is part of those that submitted their “intended nationally determined contribution” (INDC) for the pre-Paris 2015 Summit and is one of the first nations that
elaborated a “nationally determined contribution" (NDC) after the Paris Agreement
(PA) was signed.
Argentina presented the INDC as a fixed goal (a certain amount of emissions
is committed to 2030), but its justification includes a percentage reduction of the
projected emissions of a scenario without climate policies, or BAU for business as
usual).
6 The argument used to support this choice is that this metric is the usual
one for developing countries. However, that is not entirely correct. Several of our
neighbors did not opt for such type of goals. For example, Chile and Uruguay chose
emission intensity targets, while Brazil opted for absolute reductions anchored in the
past.
The contribution of Argentina within the PA is that it commits to emit no more than
483 or 369 MtCO 2 -e depending on receiving or not international financial assistance.
This means a reduction of its aggregate emissions by 18% with respect to BAU by
2030 (i.e., 592–483/592), taking emissions without policies whose projection begins
in 2005. If Argentina received financial aid to undertake more mitigation measures,
total reductions would reach 37% (i.e., 592–369/592).
The text of the NDC states that Argentina’s contribution is fair and ambitious
considering the data of the last report of the emissions gap (UNEP 2016). The rationale is that Argentina’s net emissions in 2014 are 0.7% of global GHG emissions
(ie., 369/52,700 MtCO 2 e) while the country contributes its unconditional target with
a 2.8% of the reductions committed by all countries to comply with the Paris Agreement (i.e., 109/3900). For this reason, it is said that their participation in contributions
is four times (0.7 * 4 = 2.8) the participation in the emissions. Another statement
included in the NDC text is that the unconditional and total reductions are 0.6% and
1.3%, respectively, of the effort necessary to close the gap between the emissions
foreseen for 2030 with current policies and those that are needed to reach the goal
of the two degrees. However, making an account of the participation in emissions
when the unconditional goals of all countries are met, Argentina’s participation in
2030 would be 0.87% (483/55,500). This is more than the 0.7% that the country
participated in 2014 in the total emissions, but it is the comparison that should be
used to justify the fair and ambitious without using the BAU scenario. This would
be the correct way if the target, as Argentinean authorities defend, is a fixed target
and not one that depends on the BAU scenario.
Despite these justifications, both the unconditional INDC and the NDC of
Argentina were considered insufficient by the international community. In particular,
a think tank formed by several institutions of international prestige, which is dedicated to monitoring national contributions (see
stated that, despite the improvements introduced to the goal by the new government,
it is “critically insufficient.”
6 This has not always been the case. The country designed a contribution that depended on GDP in
1999 (see Barros and Conte Grand 2002).