A Types of 2020 targets

Section 3.2 described different types of targets, covering both targets under the Kyoto Protocol and pledges under the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements. Table A.1 breaks down existing 2020 targets by type. It does not include all the non-target pledges countries have made (for instance, pledges to take specified actions in the forest sector)

Table A.1: Countries’ 2020 targets

Source for emissions figures: WRI CAIT database, 2011 data, not including land use change and forestry emissions

The table illustrates the types of targets different countries have adopted. Thirty-eight other countries have made pledges but do not have quantified targets, and 96 countries have not made pledges. The former group generally have both low capacity and low emissions, including some least developed countries, and collectively account for less than 4 per cent of global emissions. On the other hand, countries without pledges of any kind make up 20 per cent of global emissions and would therefore seem to be deserving of more attention.

Currently, most countries using market mechanisms to meet their targets have budget-based targets (New Zealand is an exception; Japan may be too if it decides to count units from its bilateral offsets crediting mechanism towards its target). It is clear how markets contribute to a budget-based target—the units a country purchases effectively increase its budget (and to avoid double-counting, are not counted towards another country’s target). It is less clear how markets contribute to a point target (for instance, whether emissions units from years other than the end point year count) and not clear how units could be used towards the other target types. This is one reason to encourage countries to take on budget-based targets, and may also be an area that requires elaboration in the post-2020 framework.