Missed the memo - 95 of countries miss NDC Deadline

February the 10th represented the 196 parties of the Paris Agreement’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) deadline. A crucial piece of national policy that outlines national goals regarding emission cuts, clean energy investment and climate change adaptation. These NDCs would have extended current commitments to 2030 and set goals through 2035. Yet of those 196, just 13 submitted their NDC by the deadline. Clearly a few missed the memo.

‍

When assessing the impacts of this, it’s perhaps important firstly to explain the importance of NDCs and the role they can play.

‍

If anything, they signify a country's intent towards meeting the Paris agreement. They play a key part of the agreement’s ratchet mechanism where the goals in each NDC supposedly ratchet up to help meet the 1.5°C maximum warming target. To meet the deadline with an NDC containing detailed policies and ambitious and long term goals regarding areas such as emission cuts marks a steadfast commitment. This is crucial in the context of the energy industry. Stability and consistency in the political and economic policies that affect the energy industry can help attract investment and drive innovation in the sector. As I have expressed in previous articles, more investment in the energy transition is crucial in areas such as the expansion of infrastructure and supporting developing nations. NDCs can act as a message of support to non-state actors who are already ambitious with their green energy commitments, and may encourage them to extend these, as well as providing clear opportunity and reduced risk for others looking to invest in the energy transition. Furthermore, nascent technologies that will play a crucial role in the energy transition, such as battery technology, hydrogen production or carbon capture, are still reliant on innovation and development to aid cost efficiencies and large scale implementation. Consistent goals laid out in NDCs are needed to drive innovation; they signify to companies that the new technologies developed will have a future role to play. NDCs may also help to encourage collaboration between countries. A public statement of particular interests could allow countries with similar climate goals to align with each other. Increased collaboration could help drive innovation through the sharing of knowledge and resources as well as providing a synergistic effect to accelerate the energy transition.

‍

‍

Simply put, NDCs are crucial to the energy transition. What could so many countries not submitting them mean? Let’s run through some scenarios:

Scenario 1 - They're trying to curate the perfect risky text

As we all know the perfect risky text takes time to craft, meticulous planning and consultation from those more experienced. Perhaps, this is what the other countries are doing: taking their time to ensure their NDCs are perfect. This is the feeling of UN climate chief Simon Stiell who has said that “the vast majority of countries have indicated they will submit new plans in 2025” and that “it makes sense that they are taking time to make sure plans are first rate”. It certainly makes sense that these NDCs should have a heightened sense of importance. Ten years on from the Paris Agreement and we are still not on target, so loftier goals are clearly needed to get on track. Furthermore, there is the clear geopolitical spanner in the works in the form of America under Trump's administration. Australia had delayed their NDC submission in part due to uncertainty about the ramifications of the US election. As the ramifications become more evident perhaps more NDCs will come out. In particular, as other developed nations realise the larger role they have to play due to the US’ clear climate and energy transition stance and therefore, hopefully, revising their NDCs to include more ambitious goals.

Scenario 2 - Think you’ve been left on read mate

Is there any clearer indication that perhaps they’re just not that into you than being left on read? Just five countries met the NDC deadline in 2020, although admittedly in a global pandemic in which (obviously) other priorities were higher, and again, so few have met it this time around. Perhaps this reflects a growing trend in climate change and energy transition discourse. What if the vehement support for the need to reduce climate change, and in turn the effect this has on the decarbonisation of the energy industry, that lead to the Paris agreement and NDCs has wavered? The delay on NDC submissions instead reflecting some states' indecision to the extent at which they will throw their support behind meeting the Paris agreement and net zero. Yet, for it to truly work and be successful there is no room for hesitancy or half-assedness.  

Scenario 3 - Someone else has slid into their DMs

‍

This is just a thought but what if they actually fancy someone else? With the US’s standpoint becoming clearer could countries be delaying their NDCs in an attempt to downplay their enthusiasm and commitment, “playing it cool” so to speak? Aligning their stance ever so closely to that of America’s to maintain friendliness and alliance in hopes of some economic gain. America’s new “slap it on anything” tariff policy is likely to be coming to the forefront of countries' economic decision making. Perhaps they are afraid taking the necessary but opposite view to the US in their NDCs could see them shunned by Trump. As a result, could we see NDCs submitted after the deadline that are considerably unambitious, with commitments around transitioning fully away from fossil fuels replaced with smaller investment goals? Has America slid into certain countries' DMs, their large follower count and blue tick enough to pry countries away from their Paris agreement commitments?

Ultimately, the true outcome of so many countries missing the deadline will be realised as we get closer to COP30 in Belem. More detailed and ambitious NDCs after the deadline are certainly better than underdeveloped ones before the deadline. So, as long as more come in before COP30, this discussion is relatively inconsequential in the short term. Yet for the long term, where missing the deadlines could be a piece of a much larger picture, we will have to wait and see.

Here’s to hoping we receive the perfect risky text.