known NDCs at the COP26 in 2021

All countries that offer a reduction well above 45% until 2030 meet the 1.5° target. I say well above because there will always be some countries that do not participate equally in reducing GHGs. In addition the -45% refer to the base year 2010. For 2020 this will result in -47% and for 2021 in -49%, because global GHG emissions have increased since then.

2010: 30.4 Gt
2020 31.5 Gt  ..... 30.4 / 31.5 = .96 * (1-45%) = -47%
2021 33.0 Gt  ..... 30.4 / 33.0 = .92 * 55% = -49%

2030 reduction target
China: -65% GDP in comparison to 2005
USA: -50%-52% from 2005
EU-28: -55% from 1990
India: -33% GDP from 2005

1990: 249.31 bio t
2020: 368,27 bio t
1990 ~ 68% of 2020  (249/368)
0.68*0.55 = 0.37, i.e. -63% in 10 years

2005 GDP: 5692
2020 GDP: 5269
2005 ~ 108% of 2020 (5692/5269)
1.08*0.50 = 0.54, i.e. -46% in 10 years

2005: 4.42t
2020: 7.39t
2005 ~ 60% of 2020 (4.42/7.39), +3.4% p.a. ~ 1/(4.42/7.39))**(1/15)
economic growth: +7% 2021
0.60 * 1.07**10 * 0.35 = 0.41, i.e. -59% in 10 years

If you calculate with 7% economic growth the reduction commitments of China are less than that of the EU. Countries like Germany have already reduced their emissions while they are globally on the rise. If you take f.i. 4% or 5% of economic growth the commitments of China are higher. We think that with the goal to become carbon neutral in mind reductions measuring emissions in relation to economic growth should be strongly discouraged. What counts for mother earth are the absolute total worldwide emissions and not emissions in relation to economic growth. We think this had a historical perspective when there was yet no zero emission commitment. Absolute reduction targets have the advantage of being more lenient in case of an economic depression which basically is what we need.

2005: 1.85t
2012: 2.38t
2.38/1.85**(1/7) = +3.7% per year (formerly)
estimated 2005-2020: +3.8% per year
estimated: 2005 ~ 57% of 2020, i.e. 1/(1.038**15)
economic growth: +7% estimated
0.57 * 1.07**10 * 0.67 = 0.75, i.e. -25% in 10 years
at a growth of 10%: -0% in 10 years!

The USA have a comparable standard of living but the US are the second largest emitter and the EU-28 just the fourth largest. There you can see what EU climate protection efforts have yielded. As far as calculated here the reduction commitments of the USA do not even meet the 1.5°C target (more about it: letter from 198methods). This even though Joe Biden wants to present himself as a climate leader. 2018: China 23%, USA 12%, India 7%, EU-28 7%. China and India have approx. the same population, the EU somewhat less than half of India and the US less than the EU (China 1.4mrd, India 1.39mrd, EU-28 510mio, US 330mio). Meanwhile China already has higher per head/people (per capita) emissions than the EU (CN-pcp~1.64%, EU-pcp~1.37%, US-pcp~3.63%, IN-pcp~0.5% per mio). However the ghg emissions can not solely be compared per capita either. China has f.i. far more industry than India. By importing goods from countries with high coal consumption like China the ecological footprint is also imported. In India there are many poor people who can not participate in the economy equally. Nonetheless we believe that those who do, still need to care about their climate impact.

The data we could get is not equally good in every case. For India we had to use per capita emissions though its growth in population is not attributed to thereby. For China and India much more than half of the energy production comes from coal; for India 74% from coal and lignite.

While other countries look on how to up their ambitions Boris Johnson (GB) has cheapened inland flights by 50%. He is investing millions of pounds in creating new roads and has granted a license to exploit oil fields at the Shetland islands. He does not even want to abandon a new coal mine in the northwest of England. This is really a shame for a country that has been part of the European Union until recently. In times when all countries need look on how they can still increase their ambition this is hard to condone.