For at least two decades, countries, companies, cities, and communities have been claiming they are “doing better” on climate change. Annual reports have been full of ratios showing greenhouse emissions per unit of output falling, and sometimes emissions falling in absolute terms. All good—but unfortunately, rarely enough. All over the world, as leaders and CEOs have been honestly claiming they are doing better, the situation has been getting worse.

We now know that the situation is indeed much worse than we had earlier understood. The world’s leaders now recognize that to protect future prosperity and well-being we must limit global warming to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius. This requires not incremental change, but radical change—roughly a halving of carbon emissions each decade through 2050. All sectors must play a part in this massive and exciting transition. But which sectors are doing their part? And which are falling short?

In this State of Climate Action report, the World Resources Institute and ClimateWorks Foundation ask how we are doing on this journey. It explores global and country-level progress across six key sectors—using 21 benchmark indicators developed by the Climate Action Tracker and WRI. In most cases progress is being made, but in only 2 cases out of 21 is the pace of progress enough. Sadly, in 2 cases we are headed in the wrong direction altogether, and in 4 cases there is simply not enough data to say where things stand.

To get on track, the world must—among other actions—rapidly transition to clean electricity generation, accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles, reduce emissions from industrial production, boost agricultural productivity, shift to more sustainable food consumption patterns, and increase annual tree cover gain. For these and other goals, the report specifies the much faster rate of progress needed to meet most of these global targets.

None of these transitions is easy. They require not incremental change, but systems change that no individual actor can deliver. They require multistakeholder engagement of governments, corporations, citizens, financial institutions, philanthropy, and the scientific community. The good news is that in all these transformations, there is a path forward that makes good sense economically, socially, and politically, as well as environmentally.

The report shows that these transitions are essential for developing and developed countries, but that developing countries will require significant financial investments, technology transfer, and capacity building to drive climate action. History has shown that transformative change can happen at an exponential, nonlinear rate; just look at how quickly cars, phones, and connected computers revolutionized our world. With the right support, low-emissions technologies such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, and low-carbon steel could be next.

By revealing how goes the battle, this report shows us the path to victory: a zero-emissions world in which all people can thrive.

Andrew Steer

President & CEO

World Resources Institute

Charlotte Pera

President & CEO

ClimateWorks Foundation

Context

The decisions countries make in the lead-up to COP26 on future climate commitments could lock us into a carbon-intensive trajectory or help steer us toward one that avoids the worst climate impacts and increases resilience. We have a narrow window of time to change direction. Countries are invited this year to update their national climate pledges (known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs) and develop long-term low-emissions development strategies. As governments seek to rebuild their economies and societies in response to COVID-19, recovery packages could lock us into a carbon-intensive trajectory and compound the challenges we are already confronting. An understanding of what different sectors can and should contribute to climate mitigation through midcentury will help guide the necessary actions of transitioning to a low-carbon society.

We should consider this next decade as our decisive decade to change our course to arrive at a different low-carbon future by midcentury. A sole focus on action through 2030 may achieve short-term goals but could ultimately lead to a more carbon-intensive pathway that does not embrace the deep decarbonization required to limit warming to 1.5°C. A sole focus on 2050, however, may not deliver the required shorter-term reductions needed to achieve feasible decarbonization rates and avoid lock-in of carbon-intensive infrastructure, technologies, and behavior.

For the majority of sectors, the required transformations are a significant departure from our current level of climate action and our everyday investments, behavior, technologies, and decision-making. And given that our ever-shrinking carbon budget does not accommodate delay, this level of change will require scaling finance, technology transfer, and capacity building for countries needing support. These transformations must be just and accompanied by measures that support those who will be most adversely affected.

About This Report

This report provides an overview of how we are collectively doing in addressing the climate crisis. Taking stock of change to date is critical for informing where best to focus our attention and change our future course of action. The report starts with a snapshot of the latest climate impacts, then describes the state of national, subnational, and corporate climate mitigation commitments, climate finance, and adaptation action. Following this discussion, this report assesses the pace of action on mitigation to date in key sectors and compares it with where we need to go by 2030 and by 2050 to limit warming to 1.5°C, and accordingly avoid the worst climate impacts. The report builds upon a previous assessment WRI conducted toward 2020 climate milestones (Ge et al. 2019) but extends it to 2030 and 2050. For this report, several indicators were identified that the literature suggests are the best ways to monitor sectoral decarbonization pathways. The targets presented in this report for power (energy), buildings, industry, and transport were developed by the Climate Action Tracker consortium, which provides independent analysis and comprises Climate Analytics and the New Climate Institute, and are designed to be compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. The forests and agriculture targets were developed by WRI and are also aligned with the 1.5°C goal. Given the longer time horizon, it is not possible to definitively say whether we are on or off track to meet our climate targets, but it is possible to measure the rate of progress to date and compare it with the rate of change required to meet 2030 and 2050 targets in an effort to inform future action. Progress toward targets is assessed at the global level as well as for key emitting countries: Brazil, China, EU28 (the European Union including the United Kingdom), India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United States.

This report aims to support key governmental decision-makers, companies, investors, and funders who are considering where to accelerate action. A secondary audience is subject experts who support such decision-makers in strengthening implementation of existing commitments, as well as increasing ambition in the future.

Key Findings

Even with only 1°C of warming, the impacts of human-induced climate change are mounting already—from the spread of fires, to more intense storms, to heat waves. While numerous countries, cities, and companies have committed to greater emissions cuts, much greater ambition is needed if we are to meet the Paris Agreement’s objectives of limiting warming to 1.5–2˚C. Adaptation efforts are gaining traction, given the onset of impacts already happening across the globe, but greater resources are needed. While climate finance has increased significantly in recent years, it is not equal to the level needed to transform our energy system, protect our forests, and adapt to increasing impacts of climate change.

Progress on reducing emissions is uneven across indicators compatible with the Paris Agreement in key sectors (power, buildings, industry, transport, forests, and agriculture) (Box ES-1). While change will very likely not occur linearly, meaning that we cannot simply extrapolate from historical rates of change, comparing historical rates of change with the pace and scale of change that will be necessary in the future can shed light on the scale of action needed.

While national progress varies across countries, at a global level, the assessment of sectoral indicators is as follows:

• Two of the 21 indicators assessed illustrate a historical rate of change that is at or above the required rate for achieving both 2030 and 2050 targets.
• For 13 of the 21 indicators assessed, the historical rate of change is heading in the right direction but well below required levels for 2030 and 2050.
• For 2 indicators, historical change has been headed in the wrong direction.
• For 4 of the indicators assessed, data are insufficient to assess the rate of historical change and the gap in action.

Figure ES-1 | Summary of indicator assessment for sectoral emissions reductions

The following sections set out the indicators and targets for each sector, and the accompanying tables highlight these numbers as well as the historical rate of change for the indicator and the rates of change needed to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. We also quantify the gap between these two rates with global acceleration factors showing how much historical action would have to accelerate to meet the future needed rates of change. In some cases, the historical rate of change is moving in entirely the wrong direction, so the acceleration rate cannot be calculated—these are noted with “n.a.; U-turn” to indicate that the trajectory of change needs to reverse.

Power

Indicator 1: Share of renewables in electricity generation (%)

Target: Share of renewables reaches 55–90 percent by 2030 and 98-100 percent by 2050

Renewable power—including hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, tide, wave, biofuels, and the renewable fraction of municipal waste—is now the generation technology of choice, making up 72 percent of new capacity in 2019. This shift has been driven by the rapid decline in the price of renewable generation technologies, particularly wind power and solar photovoltaics, and battery storage, as well as strong private sector demand coupled with national actions. The vast majority of countries have slowly increased the share of renewables in their power sector since 2005. However, to be aligned with a 1.5°C pathway countries will need to ramp up action (Table ES-1).

Indicator 2: Share of unabated coal in electricity generation (%)

Target: Share of coal falls to 0–2.5 percent in 2030 and 0 percent in 2050

The falling cost of renewables and their public health benefits have led many governments to recognize that coal is becoming economically untenable and socially unfavorable (IRENA 2018a). Despite these commitments, new coal capacity¹ has not sufficiently slowed in recent years; coal capacity is being added, primarily in China and India, to meet increasing demand (CoalSwarm 2020).

Indicator 3: Carbon intensity of electricity generation2 (gCO₂/kWh)

Target: Carbon intensity falls to 50–125 gCO₂/kWh in 2030 and below zero in 2050

To limit warming to 1.5°C we will need to reduce the global emissions intensity of electricity generation to below zero in 2050, but we have not seen much progress toward this target in the last 30 years. Progress to date is far from the levels required through 2030 and 2050.

The following table shows baseline data, targets for 2030 and 2050, the historical rate of change, and the needed future rates of change to meet the targets. The last column quantifies the gap between the historical and future rates of change with an acceleration factor—or how much the historical rate of change needs to accelerate to be on track to meet the targets.

Buildings

Indicator 1: Carbon intensity of buildings (kgCO₂/m²)

Targets: Carbon intensity of residential buildings is 45–65 percent lower than 2015 levels by 2030 for select regions. Carbon intensity of commercial buildings is 65–75 percent lower than 2015 levels by 2030 for select regions. All buildings reach near-zero emissions intensity globally by 2050.

The carbon intensity of buildings is measured in terms of kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emitted per square meter of floor area (kgCO₂/m²), and covers only emissions associated with building operation. The targets for emissions intensity imply that by 2050, almost all buildings will operate at zero or near-zero emissions. Available data are insufficient to assess global progress toward the target, though recent progress in some regions is either insufficient or heading in the wrong direction (Table ES-2).

Indicator 2: Energy intensity of buildings (kWh/m²)

Targets: Energy intensity of residential buildings is 20–30 percent lower than 2015 levels by 2030. Energy intensity of commercial buildings is 10–30 percent lower than 2015 levels by 2030 in key countries and regions. Energy intensity is 20–60 percent lower for residential buildings and 15–50 percent lower for commercial buildings than 2015 levels by 2050 in key countries and regions.

Energy intensity of buildings is measured as kilowatt-hours per square meter of floor space (kWh/m²). The growth in energy intensity will be driven by regions with growing demand for energy services that improve quality of life—for example, hot regions with increased need for and access to space cooling. Efficiency gains in all energy demand activities in buildings and improvement in building envelopes will be required. The energy use per square meter must be cut almost by half in most regions in 2050 compared to 2015 levels.

Globally, the energy intensity of buildings has been decreasing by 0.5–1 percent per year since 2010, though the rate of change needs to be accelerated to at least 2.5 percent decrease per year to be on track with the sustainable development scenario (IEA 2020h). A global goal for energy intensity has not been established in this report given the significant variation in countries’ climates and national circumstances. Instead, targets are set for select countries and regions to guide potential future pathways, and the ranges of the targets are listed in Table ES-2.

Indicator 3: Renovation rate of buildings (%/yr)

Target: The share of the world’s buildings that is renovated each year rises to 2.5–3.5 percent in 2030 and 3.5 percent in 2040. No more renovation is needed in 2050.

Renovating buildings can help improve building efficiency by saving energy and reducing emissions, as well as bringing the benefit of improved well-being and comfort. Renovation here refers to deep renovation, which includes upgrades to building envelopes and shifts to zero-carbon heating and cooling technologies. The target global renovation rate would provide a Paris-compatible pathway and lead to a fully renovated building stock by 2050. Currently the world’s building stock is renovated at an average rate of around 1–2 percent per year (IEA 2020a), but the rate varies widely by region.

Industry

Indicator 1: Carbon intensity of cement production (kgCO₂/t)

Target: Emissions intensity is 40 percent lower than 2015 levels in 2030 and 85–91 percent lower than 2015 levels in 2050, with an aspirational target to achieve 100 percent reduction in 2050.

Cement production is a carbon-intensive process and the largest contributor (27 percent) to industrial CO₂emissions. Its emissions intensity has been relatively stable over the past few years, but drastic reductions will be required to decarbonize the cement production process (Table ES-3). Cement production has been relatively stable over the past five years, at around 4.1 billion to 4.2 billion tonnes per year, and is projected to continue to grow moderately (IEA 2020b).

Indicator 2: Carbon intensity of steel production (kgCO₂/t)

Target: Carbon intensity is 25–30 percent lower than 2015 values in 2030 and falls to near net zero in 2050.

Iron and steel production is the second-largest contributor (25 percent) to CO₂emissions in the industrial sector after cement (IEA 2020e). Over the past couple of decades, the carbon intensity of steel production has been improving slightly (CAT 2020a). Global data are missing for the historical rate of change of carbon intensity in the steel sector, so it is not possible to compare it with the rate of change required in the future and assess whether we are on track to achieve the targets for this indicator.

Indicator 3: Share of electricity in final energy use in industry (%)

Target: The share of electricity in final energy use in industry reaches 35 percent in 2030, 45–55 percent in 2040, and 50–55 percent in 2050, compared to 27 percent in 2017.

Fossil fuels are used to provide high-temperature heat required in industrial processes like cement and steel production. Electrification of these subsectors can be increased, but it cannot fully replace fossil fuels, and alternative fuels like green hydrogen may also play a role in the future.

This indicator, however, considers not just cement and steel but all of industry. The historical electrification rate of industry is similar to the rate of change required over the next decade, but a large gap remains by midcentury. Electrification of industrial processes can only bring decarbonization benefits to the sector when powered by a low- or zero-carbon grid. Meeting the energy demand in the industry sector with low-carbon sources such as waste and sustainably produced biomass would be essential to fully decarbonize the sector.

Transport

Indicator 1: Share of electric vehicles (EVs) in the global light-duty vehicle fleet

Target: Share of EVs in global light-duty vehicles reaches 20–40 percent by 2030, and 85–100 percent by 2050.

Globally, EVs are rapidly penetrating the road transport fleet. In 2010, there were about 17,000 electric cars in the world, but the stock rose to more than 7 million passenger EVs in 2019, representing almost 1 percent of the global car fleet (IEA 2020d). While promoting EVs is only part of the solution to meet the increasing travel demand with low-carbon and safe options, a rapid and accelerated transition would be required to reach the level of EV share necessary to align with the temperature goals (Table ES-4).

Indicator 2: Share of EVs in annual new car sales (%)

Target: Sale of EVs as a percentage of all new car sales reaches 45–100 percent in 2030, and 95–100 percent by 2050.

In order to decarbonize transport, all new passenger vehicles need to be zero-carbon vehicles powered by a decarbonized grid. Currently the share of EVs in new car sales is still quite small, with European countries taking the lead: EVs account for more than 1 percent of new sales in 20 countries, and Norway leads with 56 percent. The share is much lower in most other countries (IEA 2020d). Globally the share of EVs in new car sales has expanded rapidly, from 1.5 percent in 2017 to 2.6 percent in 2019 (IEA 2020d). However, this rate of increase is still not sufficient and must accelerate to reach what is needed by 2030 and 2050.

Indicator 3: Carbon intensity of land-based passenger transport (gCO₂/pkm)

Target: Carbon intensity per passenger-kilometer traveled cut in half in 2030 compared to 2014 levels and reaches near zero in 2050.

A key opportunity to decarbonize the transport sector lies in reducing the fossil fuel combusted in vehicles and switching to electricity or low-carbon fuel types. It is also important to incentivize behavioral changes such as choosing to use more public transport and car-sharing rather than private vehicles. There are no historical data for this indicator, and accordingly the pace of historical change cannot be compared with what is needed by 2030 and 2050.

Indicator 4: Share of low-carbon fuels in the transport sector (%)

Target: Share of low-carbon fuels reaches 15 percent by 2030 and 70–95 percent by 2050.

Currently the transport sector is still largely dependent on fossil fuels. While we have seen improvement in the share of low-emissions fuels in transport over the past two decades, the rate of change needs to about double in the next decade and increase multifold by midcentury. The modeling does not prescribe the specific low-carbon fuels to be used in each country, although options can include, among others, electricity powered by a decarbonized grid, sustainably produced biomass, and hydrogen.

Forests

Indicator 1: Deforestation (million hectares)

Target: Reduce deforestation by 70 percent relative to the 2019 level by 2030 and by 95 percent by 2050.

Forest losses caused by conversion to other land uses, such as commodity production, urbanization, and in some cases shifting agriculture, are most likely to be permanent (i.e., deforestation). To be on track to keep temperature rise below 1.5°C, it is critical to reduce total deforestation 70 percent by 2030 and 95 percent by 2050 (Roe et al. 2019) (Table ES-5). In 2014, a broad coalition of national governments and other organizations adopted the New York Declaration on Forests—one of many initiatives aimed at reducing deforestation—with a goal of halving deforestation by 2020 and eliminating it by 2030. Since then, tree cover loss has not declined but rather has increased (NYDF Assessment Partners 2019).

Indicator 2: Gross tree cover gain (million hectares)

Target: Restore tree cover on 350 million hectares of land by 2030 and 678 million hectares by 2050.

Political will for reforestation is high, but translating commitments to action has proved more difficult for a number of reasons, including competition for land for food production and limited capacity to collect data and report progress. There are no globally consistent data for reforestation specifically, but some data are available for landscape restoration, which includes reforestation and is the best proxy measure available. Countries have pledged to restore 349 million hectares (Mha) of land by 2030 under the Bonn Challenge³ and in nationally determined contributions (Cook-Patton forthcoming). Since 2000, however, only 26.7 Mha have actually been restored based on available data, which are not yet comprehensive (Bonn Challenge 2020; NYDF Assessment Partners 2019).

Indicator 3: Carbon removal from the atmosphere due to tree cover gain (MtCO₂)

Target: Cumulative carbon removal to reach 7.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) by 2030 and 75 GtCO2 by 2050 above the 2018 level.

Carbon sequestration by trees will need to increase: it is estimated that by 2030, 7.5 GtCO₂cumulative total will need to be sequestered, and by 2050 a cumulative 75 GtCO₂will need to be sequestered (Roe et al. 2019). While difficult to measure, current estimated current carbon removal from tree cover gain is far below levels required to reach these targets (Roe et al. 2019; Griscom et al. 2017).

Agriculture

Indicator 1: Emissions from agricultural production (excluding land use change) (MtCO₂e)

Target: 2030: 22 percent reduction from the 2017 level; 2050: 39 percent reduction from the 2017 level.

Global agricultural production emissions (mainly emissions from livestock production, agricultural energy use, rice cultivation, and soil fertilization) grew by 3 percent between 2012 and 2017 (FAO 2020). Under a business-as-usual scenario, global agricultural production emissions are projected to grow by 27 percent between 2017 and 2050 (Searchinger et al. 2019). However, to keep temperature rise to 1.5˚C, emissions would need to move in the other direction, falling by 39 percent during that time to near 4 GtCO₂e/yr (Searchinger et al. 2019), and these remaining agricultural production emissions would need to be offset by large-scale reforestation (Forests Indicator 2) to achieve a “net-zero” land sector by midcentury.⁴ To this end, Indicators 2–5 track progress in implementation of strategies that would reduce agricultural land demand relative to business-as-usual and provide planetary space for avoided deforestation and reforestation (Table ES-6).

Indicator 2: Crop yields (t/ha/yr)

Target: 2030: 13 percent increase from the 2017 level; 2050: 38 percent increase from the 2017 level.

In order to feed 10 billion people by 2050, crop yields must increase even faster over the next 30 years than over the past 60 in order to increase crop production on existing agricultural land and avoid additional expansion into natural areas. Increasing productivity is critical to simultaneously meeting food production and environmental goals. Improving crop breeding, improving soil and water management, and planting existing cropland more frequently can all contribute to increased yields in a changing climate. Global crop yields grew by 0.11 tonnes per hectare per year (t/ha/yr) between 2012 and 2017, or slightly above the rate of change needed between 2017 and 2050. While this is encouraging, two caveats are necessary. First, this global yield growth represents an enormous amount of effort, and just maintaining the necessary level of improvement for another three decades, in a changing climate, will be a major undertaking. Second, this recent global trend masks wide variation between regions. In particular, sub-Saharan Africa, where crop yields are the lowest in the world, saw slow yield growth from 2012 to 2017 (only 0.01 t/ha/yr), when compared to the regional target of 0.11 t/ha/yr between 2017 and 2050 to meet projected growth in regional food demand without further deforestation and/or increasing reliance on food imports.

Indicator 3: Productivity of ruminant meat production (kg/ha/yr)

Target: 2030: increase of 27 percent above the 2017 level; 2050: increase of 58 percent above the 2017 level.

As incomes rise, demand for meat and milk from ruminant animals (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats) is likely to grow even more than demand for crops out to the year 2050. At a global scale, the pace of productivity gains between 2017 and 2050 would need to be even faster than between 2012 and 2017, a period that saw a 5 percent increase in ruminant meat production per hectare of pasture per year (FAO 2020).

Indicator 4: Food loss and waste (kg/capita/yr)

Target: 2030: 25 percent reduction below the 2017 level; 2050: 50 percent reduction from the 2017 level.

Roughly one-third of all food produced in the world each year (by weight) is lost or wasted between the farm and the fork (FAO 2011a). Because of the many complexities across regions and supply chains and gaps in food loss and waste data, we have set equal targets of 25 percent reductions in per capita food loss and waste across all regions by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050.

Indicator 5: Ruminant meat consumption (kcal/person/day)

Target: 2030: limit increase to 5 percent above the 2017 level; 2050: limit increase to 6 percent above the 2017 level.

As incomes rise and people move to cities, diets tend to become more varied and also higher in resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy. For this reason, consumption of animal-based foods is projected to grow by nearly 70 percent between 2010 and 2050 (Searchinger et al. 2019). Modest increases in consumption of animal-based foods can boost nutrition in low-income countries, but in countries where meat consumption is high, shifting diets toward plant-based foods can reduce agricultural land demand and GHG emissions. If ruminant meat consumption in high-consuming countries declined by 40 percent by 2050 to 52 kcal/person/day, or about 1.5 burgers/person/week, it would reduce agricultural land demand by more than 500 million hectares relative to business-as-usual (Searchinger et al. 2019). Per capita ruminant meat consumption declined at the global level between 2012 and 2017, but this global trend hides regional variation. The trend from 2012 to 2017 shows that the Americas and Europe would need to reduce consumption three times more quickly to meet 2050 regional targets. Meanwhile, low-income regions such as sub-Saharan Africa actually reduced ruminant meat consumption between 2012 and 2017, even though their 2050 regional target allows for growth. Therefore, the world saw recent progress toward the global target but in a suboptimal way that maintained inequality of consumption between regions.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to limit warming to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. According to the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2018), global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will need to be halved by 2030 and reach net zero by midcentury in order to have a good chance of holding temperature increase to 1.5°C.⁵ The sooner emissions peak and the lower they are at the time of peaking, the greater the likelihood of reaching net-zero emissions in time.

Figure 1 | Global mean temperature rise relative to 1951-1980 (°C)

Note: Data in 2020 shown here are through April only. 
Source: Le Quéré et al. (2020).

Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other causes have already resulted in 1.1°C of warming above preindustrial levels (WMO 2020), which has radically altered our climate. The impacts of a changing climate are already bringing catastrophic damage to communities around the world, leading to loss of life, livelihoods, ecosystems, homes, and other infrastructure we depend on. Already as a result of changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise, we are seeing extreme weather events unfold around the world. Recent research confirms that these events are getting more frequent and severe. This year, extreme fires burned 18 million hectares in Australia, and the conditions that sparked and spread the fires were found to be at least 30 percent more likely because of human-induced climate change (Phillips 2020). As of mid-September, 2020’s record-setting fires on the U.S. West Coast had claimed 30 lives, displaced thousands, and burned houses and other infrastructure over more than 5 million acres (Migliozzi et al. 2020).

The odds of drought have increased significantly in the Mediterranean region as a result of human-caused emissions, and heat waves are increasing around the world as temperatures rise (IPCC 2014b). There also is significant evidence that the frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation events have increased due to anthropogenic warming (IPCC 2019a).

A definitive report from the IPCC (2018) found that the world will face severe climate impacts even with 1.5°C temperature rise. Without increased ambition in countries’ climate commitments and climate actions, we can anticipate at least 3˚C of warming by the end of the century (UNEP 2019), which could lead to an almost unrecognizable planet. The world’s most vulnerable people will be most disproportionally impacted (IPCC 2019a), compounding other global challenges and our ability to meet societal goals.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

While global emissions showed no recent signs of peaking (Levin and Rich 2017), the COVID-19 crisis has led to an unprecedented decline in GHG emissions over the past half year. According to a study in May 2020 (Le Quéré et al. 2020), by early April global daily CO₂emissions had declined by 17 percent compared with average 2019 emissions (Figure 1). However, only two months later, by mid-June, as governments and businesses started to reopen, emissions had already returned to 5 percent below 2019 levels (Le Quéré et al. 2020). The choices governments and investors make in the coming months as they plan to rebuild their economies will dictate our emissions trajectory for decades to come. And experience has shown us that emissions reductions caused by economic downturns are only temporary (Peters et al. 2012).

The 2019 UNEP Emissions Gap Report found that emissions need to be halved by 2030 to have a good chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, which translates to reductions of 7.6 percent per year over the next decade.

Warming Temperatures

The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rapidly warming the planet. The year 2019 was the second warmest since modern recordkeeping began (NASA 2020c), after 2016. The last five years have been the warmest since the Industrial Revolution (Figure 2). The past decade was the warmest on record, with each decade warmer than the one that preceded it (NASA 2020c). This warming has not been evenly distributed; the poles are warming the fastest.

Figure 2 | Global mean temperature rise relative to 1951-1980 (°C)

Source: Met Office (2019).

Climate Impacts on Ice and Glaciers

In 2019, Arctic sea ice minimum was the second lowest on record. Ice loss has been accelerating in Greenland and Antarctica (NASA 2020a) (Figure 3). In February 2020, temperatures climbed to 18.3°C (65°F) in Antarctica, its hottest day on record (NASA 2020d). Greenland’s melting in the summer of 2020 was well above average, although not as high as some recent previous summers (NSIDC 2020). In 2019 ice lost from the Greenland Ice Sheet was almost 2.5 times the average annual loss between 2002 and 2019 (Veliconga et al. 2020).

Figure 3 | Antarctic ice mass loss, 2002–20

Source: NASA (2020a).

Glaciers around the world are also losing ice at a rate that is accelerating with each passing year. Per decade, the average loss of liquid water from glaciers nearly doubled from 460 millimeters (18 inches) of liquid water in the 1990s to 850 millimeters (33 inches) in 2010–18 (NOAA 2019).

Climate Impacts on Our Oceans

Global mean sea level rise was roughly 3.3 millimeters (mm) per year (0.13 inch/yr) between 1993 and 2020 (Figure 4) (NASA 2020b). This trend accelerated significantly during this past decade: between 2010 and 2018, sea level rise grew to about 4.4 mm/yr (0.17 inch/yr) (NASA 2020b). In 2019, sea level rise reached its highest value on record (WMO 2020).

As oceans absorb almost a quarter of CO₂emissions, the ocean has been acidifying, with a decline in pH of 0.017–0.027 per decade since the late 1980s (WMO 2020). The ocean also absorbs 90 percent of the excess heat retained by the earth, and has been warming rapidly. In 2019, the heat content of the ocean reached record highs (WMO 2020). As a result of this heat, this year Australia experienced a new coral bleaching event that is the most widespread on record, and the third major bleaching event in only five years (Kann 2020). The IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, documented that marine heatwaves are becoming more extensive, intense, and long-lasting. Large-scale coral bleaching events have become more frequent over the past two decades due to warming (IPCC 2019b).

Figure 4 | Sea level change (mm) since 2010

Source: NASA (2020b).

National-Level Action

Nationally determined contributions: In 2019, 103 countries representing 38.4 percent of global GHG emissions committed to enhancing their NDCs in 2020 (COP25 Presidency 2019) (ClimateWatch 2020a). Fifteen countries had submitted NDCs to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by November 2020, but these countries only account for 4.6 percent of global GHG emissions, and not all of these submissions reflected strengthened commitments.

Long-term strategies: As of November 2020, 19 Parties representing 26.5 percent of global GHG emissions had submitted their long-term strategies (ClimateWatch 2020c).

Net-zero targets: As of September 2020, 20 countries and the European Union had adopted net-zero targets, and over 100 more were considering doing so (Levin et al. 2020). However, the percentage of global emissions covered by an adopted national net-zero target still hovers at 10 percent.

Climate laws and policies: As of October 2020 there were 2,070 climate laws and policies worldwide (LSE, GRICCE 2020) and 64 carbon-pricing initiatives that had been implemented or were scheduled for implementation, representing 22.3 percent of global GHG emissions (World Bank 2020). At the end of 2019, 166 countries had targets for renewable electricity generation, 49 countries had targets for renewable energy sources for heating and cooling, and 46 countries had targets for renewable transportation fuels (REN21 2020).

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, was instrumental in establishing the goals and processes to limit global warming to 1.5–2°C, enhance adaptation, and channel finance toward low GHG emissions and climate-resilient development. The question today is, How are countries responding to the Agreement? And, what additional action is expected?⁶

Based on a review of major national commitments, it is clear that some countries are stepping up their efforts to address climate change, from setting bolder emission reduction targets (in both the near and longer term) to enacting new legislation and drafting adaptation plans. But the overall global scale of ambition is still unclear, as many major emitters have yet to put forward new or updated NDCs and long-term low GHG emissions development strategies (long-term strategies). The global COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting delay in COP26, adds uncertainty.

Nationally determined contributions

Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) submitted under the Paris Agreement set out national goals for addressing climate change, typically with a time frame ending in 2030. All of the first NDCs communicated in 2015 include targets, policies, and/or actions to mitigate climate change (i.e., reduce GHG emissions); 131 NDCs also include policies and/or actions to adapt to climate change and improve resilience (Murphy 2019).

The first NDCs communicated in 2015 are collectively insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals. If all commitments that do not hinge on international support are implemented, global average temperature is projected to increase by 3.2°C by the end of the century (UNEP 2019).

To help close this “emissions gap,” countries are expected to prepare progressively more ambitious NDCs over time (UNFCCC 2015; Article 4). The first official request to enhance the ambition of NDCs is in 2020 (UNFCCC 2015; Decision 1/CP.21). Some countries are already responding to this call. In 2019, 103 countries committed to enhancing their NDCs in 2020, representing 38.4 percent of global GHG emissions (ClimateWatch 2020a). Fifteen countries had submitted NDCs to the UNFCCC by November 2020 (Figure 5), but these countries only account for 4.6 percent of global GHG emissions, and not all of these submissions reflected strengthened commitments. Major emitters in particular will need to come forward with significantly enhanced mitigation contributions in order to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C.

Figure 5 | Status of countries’ intent to enhance NDCs, November 2020

Source: ClimateWatch (2020c).

Long-term strategies

Under the Paris Agreement, all countries are invited to communicate midcentury “long-term low GHG emissions development strategies” by 2020. These strategies reveal the scale of transformation needed to bring national climate action in line with global ambition—while at the same time focusing on sustainable development. Long-term strategies also play a key role in informing near-term decisions, helping to avoid investments that are incompatible with a low-carbon and climate-resilient future. Long-term strategies can also be a particularly helpful guide as countries begin to establish national economy recovery plans in response to COVID-19—ideally aligned with long-term low-emissions and climate-resilient development. As of November 2020, 19 Parties had submitted their long-term strategies, representing 26.5 percent of global GHG emissions (ClimateWatch 2020c) (Figure 6). Many other countries, including major emitters, have initiated domestic preparations in order to meet the 2020 deadline (2050 Pathways Platform 2016).

Figure 6 | Status of long-term strategies communicated to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 2020

Source: ClimateWatch (2020c).

Net-zero targets

There is growing momentum from countries to set net-zero emissions targets, to be achieved by 2050 or sooner. By September 2020, eight countries have enacted net-zero legislation (Sweden, Marshall Islands, Hungary, Portugal, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, and New Zealand), seven have tabled legislation (Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the European Union), and six have included net-zero goals in policy documents (Andorra, Bhutan, Singapore, Fiji, Iceland, and Japan) (Levin et al. 2020). More than 100 other countries “are working towards achieving net zero CO₂emissions by 2050” (COP25 Presidency 2019). Only around 10 percent of global emissions are, however, covered by some form of an adopted net-zero target (Levin et al. 2020).

Laws and policies

According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE, GRICCE 2020), as of October 2020 there were 2,070 climate laws and policies worldwide.

Looking just at carbon-pricing initiatives, as of October 2020, 64 emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes had been implemented or were scheduled for implementation, representing 22.3 percent of global GHG emissions (World Bank 2020) (Figure 7). Of these initiatives, 33 were carbon taxes and 31 were emissions trading systems (World Bank 2020).

Figure 7 | Status of carbon-pricing initiatives, July 2020

Source: World Bank (2020).

At the end of 2019, 166 countries had targets for renewable energy in power, 49 countries had targets for renewable energy in heating and cooling, and 46 countries had targets for renewable energy in transport (REN21 2020).

Subnational Action

Subnational climate action: As of November 2020, 10,984 cities and regions had committed to 12,577 climate actions registered on the UNFCCC Global Climate Action portal (UNFCCC 2020).

Net-zero carbon emissions by 2050: As of September 2020, 470 cities and regions had committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 through the Race to Zero global campaign (UNFCCC 2020).

City climate action: Current commitments of member cities of the Global Covenant of Mayors representing 21 percent of the global urban population could reduce GHG emissions by 2.3 GtCO₂e by 2030 and 4.2 GtCO₂e by 2050. However, city-level efforts currently fall short of the ambition needed to align with a 1.5-degree pathway (GCOM 2019). To date, 115 cities have committed to developing 1.5˚C-aligned climate action plans and 12 member cities of C40 (2020) have already completed their plans.

Progress of states and regions: Of the states and regions disclosing on their climate action, 80 percent are making positive emissions reductions toward 2030 targets. This effort is not in line with the 1.5°C trajectory in 2030, however, and these actors should raise their ambition (Quintana and Gorman 2019).

More than half of the world’s population resides in cities, and by 2050 the share of the urban population is expected to grow to two-thirds (UN 2019). The climate footprint of cities, combined with their anticipated growth, underscores the importance of cities in addressing climate change. Several factors make city climate action significant: high energy consumption and waste production, familiarity with translating global goals into local practice, the ability to trigger action by others, and experience with addressing localized environmental impacts (Bulkeley and Betsill 2003).

The number of cities and subnational regions committing to climate action has grown steadily (Figure 8). There are currently 10,932 cities and regions, primarily from developed countries, with recorded climate actions on the Global Climate Action portal (UNFCCC 2020), more than three times the number only four years ago. These cities are committing to various types of actions, including emissions reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency targets; over 400 cities are now committing to net-zero emissions by 2050 through the Climate Ambition Alliance (Chile 2020). Many of these commitments are more ambitious than their national counterparts.⁷

Several examples demonstrate that cities and regions are working to address climate change, even when many countries are not. Recent analysis of more than 1,000 cities that are part of the EU Covenant of Mayors shows that 60 percent are on track to achieve their 2020 emission reduction targets (Hsu et al. 2020). In addition, 80 percent of the states and regions disclosing information on their climate action are making positive reductions. For example, the Scottish government, as part of the Under2 Coalition, is making significant progress toward its ambitious net-zero 2045 target, having reduced current emissions by 47 percent since 1990 (Quintana and Gorman 2019). The United States has seen a steady increase in commitments from states, cities, and counties on clean energy and climate change. Nearly half of U.S. states have committed to reducing GHG emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. U.S. Climate Mayors, which added 18 new cities in the past year, now includes 430 cities. These efforts represent 68 percent of GDP, 65 percent of the population, and 51 percent of national GHG emissions (America’s Pledge Initiative on Climate Change 2019). The state of Hawaii has already exceeded its 2020 target to reduce emissions to 1990 levels (Quintana and Gorman 2019). And several cities around the world are advancing climate action plans that put their cities on a path to become emissions neutral by 2050 and more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

However, we’re still in the early stages of understanding more broadly how cities are progressing on their actions and contributing to national ambition. There is growing interest in tracking the progress of cities toward meeting these commitments; however, to date, comprehensive data are limited and thus results are mixed.

In addition, despite this growth in commitment, cities are still slow to translate their intentions into concrete plans and actions. For example, of the 115 cities that have committed, through the C40 (2020) initiative, to develop climate action plans compatible with the Paris Agreement, only 12 have done so.

Corporate Action

Corporate climate action: As of September 2020, 5,106 companies and investors had committed to 10,658 climate actions registered on the UNFCCC Global Climate Action portal (UNFCCC 2020).

Science-based targets: As of September 2020, 989 companies were taking science-based climate action and 467 companies had approved targets in line with what the latest climate science says is necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement—to limit global warming to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Net-zero targets: As of September 2020, 995 businesses and 38 investors had committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 through the Race to Zero global campaign (UNFCCC 2020). Yet, while corporate commitment to mitigate climate change is growing, the pace and scale of action is wholly inadequate. A small minority of the millions of companies worldwide are taking the lead.

In addition to subnational governments, the private sector plays a central role in the production of GHG emissions and can also contribute to mitigation, particularly through technological innovation (Wright and Nyberg 2015; IPCC 2014b). Businesses are a powerful driver of economic activity and have significant influence on how quickly or slowly the world transitions to a low-carbon future. Working together with governments, businesses have incredible potential to reduce global emissions (We Mean Business 2016).

With mounting evidence that a corporate low-carbon strategy makes good business sense (Falk 2020; NCE 2018), many companies have adopted climate actions and targets and are striving to implement them. The Global Climate Action portal currently recognizes 3,973 companies and 1,133 investors with climate actions (UNFCCC 2020) (Figure 9). As of September 2020, 995 businesses and 38 investors had committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 through the Race to Zero global campaign (UNFCCC 2020).

The Science Based Targets initiative has seen a rapid increase in companies joining and setting targets. As of August 2020, 972 companies had publicly joined, and 407 of these had had their targets officially approved, including several which have met their goals and are looking to renew them (SBTi 2020a) (Figure 10).

More broadly, there has been growth in target-setting by the world’s largest companies, although many major corporations still lack a serious commitment to climate change. By 2019, only 23 percent of Fortune 500 companies had committed to carbon neutrality, using 100 percent renewable power, or meeting a science-based target by 2030 (Natural Capital Partners 2019). A 2019 expanded look at the world’s largest companies, including the Global Forbes 2000, shows that more than 450 companies, or just over 20 percent, have climate commitments (NewClimate Institute 2019).

Despite the flurry of commitments and regular reporting on climate performance by many, there are still limited data to assess progress toward targets, with many companies not fully disclosing their GHG emissions. Third-party analysis suggests that four-fifths of companies are not on track to meet the global 1.5°C goal by 2050 based on their current emissions intensity and sector-specific emissions projections (Arabesque 2020).

While corporate commitment to mitigating climate change is growing, the pace and scale of action is wholly inadequate. A small minority of the millions of companies worldwide are taking the lead. Of the roughly 7,000 companies that regularly report climate information, only around 875 are showing year-on-year emissions decreases. Despite their commitment, the level of ambition is often still below the effort needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. The majority of companies’ targets aim for roughly half of the ambition required by the Paris Agreement (e.g., aiming for 15 percent reductions instead of 30 percent for short-term targets, and only 50 percent reductions by 2050) (World Economic Forum 2019). Combined with a lack of transparency, including irregular and inconsistent reporting, in reality, companies may actually be doing very little to mitigate climate change.

Climate Finance

Total global flows of tracked public and private climate finance exceeded half a trillion dollars for the first time, averaged across 2017 and 2018, a 40 percent increase from the 2013–14 average (CPI 2019). However, even though climate finance has increased over recent years, estimates show that it falls far short of what will be needed.

Although carbon pricing currently covers around 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, less than 5 percent of global emissions are priced at a level consistent with achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement (World Bank 2019; IPCC 2018). At the same time, fossil fuel subsidies are not being phased out fast enough (OECD and IEA 2019).

Despite a growing number of commitments, only around half of major private sector banks have sustainable finance commitments, and many are still investing more in fossil fuels than they are in sustainable finance, including those with commitments (WRI 2019; Pinchot and Christianson 2019).

Increasing climate finance is critical to tackling the climate crisis because large-scale investments are needed across sectors to decarbonize the economy and adapt to the impacts of climate change, through efforts like switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, electrifying transport, protecting forests and coastal wetlands, and improving building efficiency. Climate finance flows have, on average, been increasing year over year, but they still fall short of what is needed to meet temperature goals under the Paris Agreement. At the same time, support for fossil fuels is not decreasing fast enough.

Total global flows of tracked public and private climate finance exceeded half a trillion dollars for the first time, averaged across 2017 and 2018, a 40 percent increase from the 2013–14 average (Figure 11). The majority of climate finance flows come from private actors and are directed toward renewable energy, low-carbon transport, and other mitigation activities. While climate finance has increased steadily over recent years, estimates indicate that between $1.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion per year will be needed through 2050 to transform the energy system, and an additional $280 billion to $500 billion will be needed annually for adaptation in developing countries by 2050 (CPI 2019).

Aside from total climate finance flows, a few other indicators help show where and how the finance sector is incorporating the risks of climate change and investing in its opportunities.

As an indicator of investment interest in climate-aligned projects, green bond issuance has been growing steadily, from less than $10 billion in 2012 to $258 billion in 2019, representing a more than 50 percent increase from the 2018 figure of $171 billion. While this represents significant growth, it is still a small portion of the global $100 trillion bond market.

Carbon pricing—either through a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme (ETS)—currently covers around 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This coverage is expected to jump to 20 percent when China’s national ETS comes into effect, which could be as early as the end of 2020 (World Bank 2020; Xu and Stanway 2020). While the number of jurisdictions covered has been increasing, less than 5 percent of global emissions are priced at a level consistent with achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, which the IPCC identifies as at least $135/tCO₂e in 2030 and at least $245/tCO₂e in 2050 (World Bank 2019; IPCC 2018).

At the same time, fossil fuel subsidies are not being phased out fast enough (Figure 12). Because around two-thirds of subsidies go to oil, volatility in global oil markets that may raise energy prices leaves recent reforms fragile (OECD and IEA 2019). More recent data from the International Energy Agency (IEA 2020f) on just consumption subsidies indicate lower subsidy values in 2019 and estimated for 2020, due in part to declining oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic, which also provides a favorable environment to further reduce subsidies and solidify recent reductions.

While most policy changes may not be advancing at the speed needed, private sector action has picked up pace. The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, founded in late 2015, issued its recommendations for what types of climate-related information companies should include in their financial filings in 2017 to increase transparency around climate-related risks. Since then more than 930 organizations with a combined market capitalization of $11 trillion have signed on, but recent progress assessments show that disclosures are often still insufficient for investors (TCFD 2019).

Other notable commitments and announcements in the past year indicate that the financial sector is beginning to incorporate the impacts of climate change:

• BlackRock became the largest signatory (with just under $7 trillion in assets under management) to join the Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to ensure that corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change.
• The European Union pledged to become a net-zero emitter by 2050—a key objective of the Green Deal—and mobilize €1 trillion for sustainable investments over the coming decade (European Commission 2020a).
• In recent months, the world’s foremost economic institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and major central banks, have advocated for policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The BIS—known as the central bank for central banks—warned that climate change could cause “potentially extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis” (Bolton et al. 2020).
• The UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, representing nearly $5 trillion in assets under management, committed to transitioning investment portfolios to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (UNEP FI 2019).
• More than 50 financial institutions have committed to setting science-based targets under the Science Based Targets initiative’s new guidance for financial institutions (SBTi 2020b).

Despite a recent increase in the number of commitments, only around half of major private sector banks have sustainable finance commitments, and many are still investing more in fossil fuels than they are in sustainable finance, including those with commitments (WRI 2019; Pinchot and Christianson 2019). Overall, climate finance flows have been increasing in both the public and private sectors along with political commitment to aligning finance with climate objectives, but these changes are not happening fast enough to stay on a Paris-aligned trajectory.

Adaptation

Countries are increasingly prioritizing and advancing adaptation measures. One hundred thirty-six nationally determined contributions (NDCs) contain specific adaptation components (GCF 2018).

As of November 2019, at least 120 developing countries had undertaken efforts to formulate and implement national adaptation plans (NAPs).

As of 2018, 40 developed countries had reported on adaptation progress in their seventh national communications, and 25 of 28 EU member states had adopted a national adaptation strategy or national adaptation plan (Nachmany et al. 2019; European Commission 2018).

According to CPI’s 2019 study, international adaptation finance increased 35 percent from 2015–16 to 2017–18—to an annual average of US$30 billion from $22 billion—though it still accounts for just 5 percent of tracked climate finance (CPI 2019).

This section provides a snapshot of the state of global and national adaptation progress.⁸

The importance of adaptation

Recent statements and commitments by countries signal that adaptation action is critical. This is in part due to the impetus provided by the Paris Agreement. Scientific evidence also continues to mount on the importance of urgent and immediate adaptation action (IPCC 2018, 2019a). Moreover, as communities around the world experience the adverse impacts of climate change, there is also greater recognition that adaptation can help avert or reduce losses and damage associated with these impacts (with benefit-cost ratios ranging from 2:1 to 10:1, and in some cases are even higher) (GCA 2019).

• One hundred thirty-six nationally determined contributions (NDCs) contain specific adaptation components (GCF 2018).
• As of November 2019, at least 120 developing countries had undertaken efforts to formulate and implement national adaptation plans (NAPs), and all 49 least developed countries (LDCs) are working on submitting their first NAPs by the end of 2020 or soon after. Most countries are explicitly addressing adaptation through laws or policies.
• As of 2018, 40 developed countries had reported on adaptation progress in their seventh national communications, and 25 of 28 EU member states had adopted a national adaptation strategy or national adaptation plan (Nachmany et al. 2019; European Commission 2018).
• Furthermore, in 2019, more than 170 countries endorsed the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit’s Call for Action on Adaptation and Resilience, and the Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA), convened by the heads of state of 23 countries, spurred financial commitments and major initiatives to accelerate adaptation action and support.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also been a painful wake-up call, exposing the compound risks that people, especially the most vulnerable, face. There is recognition that taking action today to reduce, prepare for, and better manage risks—including those related to health, the economy, and climate change—is imperative (GCA 2020).

Emerging trends

Nationally determined contributions, one manner in which countries communicate their adaptation actions and commitments to the UNFCCC, offer insight into which sectors and issues developing-country governments are prioritizing. An analysis conducted by WRI for the Green Climate Fund in 2018 (GCF 2018) found that in the 136 NDCs that include an adaptation component, some identify priority sectors or describe general sector-level goals, while others describe specific activities within different sectors. About 85 percent of NDCs with adaptation components include agriculture as a priority area. More than 50 percent of NDCs with adaptation components mention freshwater supply, disaster reduction, forests, and ecosystems. More than 50 percent reference health. Less than a quarter of NDCs with adaptation components refer to gender-, women-, or gender-responsive approaches, and less than a fifth reference the rights and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples.

A 2018 analysis of EU member states’ national adaptation strategies and plans also underscores certain trends. All member states with a national adaptation strategy or plan have a basic governance structure in place for adaptation policymaking. Climate change scenarios are widely available at the national level. Most member states use detailed vulnerability and/or risk assessments to prioritize adaptation options. And while most member states have begun implementing their national adaptation strategies or plans and have planned periodic reviews, monitoring and reporting are limited.

A 2019 global review of national laws and policies in developed and developing countries (Nachmany et al. 2019) found that many countries now have legislative and policy frameworks that set priorities for adaptation action. The most common areas of focus are information generation and sharing, adaptation planning, establishing institutional arrangements, building capacity for adaptation, and processes for monitoring and evaluating action. Key enablers missing from many of these laws and policies include greater investment in public goods (beyond early warning systems), integration of climate risk considerations in building codes and land use planning, and incentives to facilitate adaptation action.

Progress on mainstreaming adaptation into economic and development sectors is uneven. A 2015 study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) of 15 developing countries in Asia and Africa found that some were actively mainstreaming adaptation into policy and programming while others were not (IISD 2015). A 2018 review of more than 100 mainstreaming efforts in developed and developing countries found that while many had integrated adaptation into sectoral policy documents and plans, only half reported concrete projects and activities (Runhaar et al. 2018). And while major bilateral donors and multilateral development banks have put in place processes to screen whether programs and projects may be at risk of climate change impacts, it is still unclear how screening results are used to change what decisions are made and how they are made (Larsen et al. 2018).

Requests for support also offer insight into the state of adaptation. Requests from developing countries for support to advance their NAP processes have increased dramatically. As of April 2020, the Green Climate Fund had approved 50 proposals, with 6 more in the final stages of approval; these 56 proposals had a combined value of US$132 million (GCF 2020). As of March 2020, 52 percent of adaptation requests from member countries to the NDC Partnership focused on finance and investment, as identified through a Support Unit analysis of adaptation requests (NDCP forthcoming). Requests range from support in identifying incentives to attract the private sector and understanding the risks of climate change from a financial and macroeconomic perspective to support in analyzing costs and benefits of adaptation options and developing bankable projects. The NAP Global Network, based on the analysis of requests of NDC Partnership member countries, reports a consistent demand for support in developing sector strategies as well as financing and resource mobilization strategies, communications, and capacity extension. The network also reports an increase in demand for support of monitoring and evaluation, as countries become increasingly aware of the need to define and track adaptation progress and effectiveness, as well as of private sector engagement and gender-responsive adaptation action.

Barriers to adaptation action

Barriers to accelerated adaptation action remain, and these barriers are well documented. They include lack of data and understanding about climate risks and about what works and why, short-term planning biases, fragmented responsibilities, poor institutional cooperation, lack of resources, and the often-limited ability of people most at risk to shape decisions.

Adaptation finance

In the absence of a comprehensive global-level assessment of how much governments currently spend on adaptation, Oxford Policy Management examined in 2019 for the Global Commission on Adaptation (Allan et al. 2020) regional- and country-level spending assessments, including climate public expenditure and institutional reviews and climate financing frameworks. The report concluded that a significant volume of investment in adaptation is already coming from public domestic sources (in some cases exceeding that from international sources) and that this falls short of current and projected needs and domestic policy ambitions. The most common reason for this shortfall in the short term is that climate change adaptation competes with other development objectives, and decisions on how public funds are allocated, spent, and reported against do not adequately prioritize adaptation.

According to a 2019 study by the Climate Policy Institute (CPI), international adaptation finance increased 35 percent from 2015–16 to 2017–18—from an annual average of $22 billion to $30 billion—though it still accounts for just 5 percent of tracked climate finance (CPI 2019). Three sectors account for 78 percent of total adaptation finance annually: water and wastewater management (32 percent), agriculture and land use (24 percent), and disaster risk management (22 percent). Public finance for disaster risk management projects grew the fastest, increasing 128 percent, from an annual average of $2.9 billion in 2015–16 to $6.6 billion in 2017–18. Public finance for adaptation in agriculture, forestry, and land use also increased significantly, from $4.5 billion in 2015–16 to $7 billion in 2017–18. While increasing, these flows fall far below adaptation finance needs, which in developing countries alone are projected to be between $140 billion to $300 billion annually by 2030 (UNEP 2016).

Choice of Indicators

The report assesses progress toward global and national targets in power, buildings, industry, transport, forests, and agriculture for 2030 and 2050. For each sector, several indicators were identified that the literature suggests are the best way to monitor sectoral decarbonization pathways. However, the indicator selection is not comprehensive due to practical constraints, and there are some omissions, such as indicators to measure performance of aviation and maritime transport. Also, the targets are not completely independent, since progress on one indicator could further another; for example, penetration of renewables on the electric grid would assist progress in decarbonizing industrial processes. Additionally, internal assumptions are consistent across sectors; for example, the indicator related to low-carbon transport fuels assumes the rate of decarbonization in the power sector that that target implies. There are different options for achieving some of the indicators, such as for reducing steel emissions intensity, whether this is achieved through a scrap route or a hydrogen route.

Design of Targets

The targets for power, buildings, industry, and transport were developed by the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) consortium to be compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C.⁹ They were designed to represent the highest plausible ambition while taking technology and infrastructure into account, and to increase our chances of meeting the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goals.

The CAT team used both top-down and bottom-up methods to establish the targets (CAT 2020a):

• Integrated assessment models (IAMs): The CAT team first considered the IAMs that were able to limit warming to 1.5°C (“no overshoot” and “low overshoot” scenarios in which a brief and limited overshoot of average warming occurred). The team then refined their selection to include only those scenarios that assumed sustainable use of carbon removal (bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, reforestation and afforestation). These pathways are defined on a least-cost pathway and do not take into account equitable distribution of costs and required action.
• Downscaled IAMs: In addition to the global scenarios from the IAMs, the CAT team used a simplified IAM¹⁰ to downscale regional IAM pathways to the country level. These modeled pathways on the country level account for the initial energy mix of the countries and the regional transition. The downscaling is done for 1.5°C-compatible pathways that are harmonized to country-specific historical data.
• Bottom-up sectoral modeling and studies at the national level: The CAT team also used a combination of its own bottom-up modeling (e.g., steel, EVs, cement, buildings) and other independent literature. For these studies, technical feasibility, rather than a full economic analysis, and the countries’ current status for a given indicator were taken into account for the country-specific targets. Each sectoral target that was derived from such bottom-up analyses was still compared with 1.5°C-compatible IAMs to ensure that, if there was any discrepancy, the bottom-up approaches were more ambitious in achieving decarbonization more rapidly.

When targets are presented as a range of values, the lower end of the range represents what can be achieved with current technologies and strategies. The more ambitious end of the range relies on technologies and strategies that are known but have not been developed and deployed at scale, or in some cases represent trade-offs in decarbonization with other sectors (CAT 2020a). For more information on the design of targets, see CAT (2020b).

The forests and agriculture targets were developed by WRI. Forest indicators and targets for 2030 and 2050 are based on what the literature suggests is needed in terms of reduced deforestation and increased reforestation to be in line with 1.5°C temperature rise. National targets are determined through burden-sharing of global targets based on area of reforestation potential. Agriculture targets were set using a model from Searchinger et al. (2019). Determining criteria for these targets were food security for 10 billion people, nearly 600 million hectares of reforestation, and no more than 4 GtCO₂e/yr of agricultural production emissions. The regional- and country-level 2050 targets for Indicators 1–3 and 5 in this section are also outputs of the model. Additional details are provided in Box 1. Indicator 4’s targets are based on Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 on food loss and waste reduction.

It should be noted that the indicators chosen in this report represent a set of critical actions but are not comprehensive.

Country Selection and Consideration of Equity

Targets were chosen at the global level, as well as for China, the United States, India, the European Union (EU28),¹¹ Indonesia, Brazil (six of the top seven emitters, excluding Russia), and South Africa (as the highest emitter in Africa). For the forests sector, we also include Bolivia, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Malaysia, because these countries have among the highest levels of deforestation and related emissions.

The targets for power, buildings, industry, and transport take into account the current status of an indicator in a given country, thereby recognizing current practice and differing national capacities to more readily bring about change. However, given the very small remaining carbon budget consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, very rapid and deep reductions are required across all major emitting countries and sectors. Accordingly, at least for major emitters, there is little room for staggered decarbonization, which allows some countries to reduce emissions more slowly given historical responsibility for emissions or current capabilities. And to the extent developing countries have a slower decarbonization pathway in the near term, this implies faster progress from developed countries. This means that, while the developed countries included in this study have targets as or more stringent than other countries, there is often convergence among national targets, especially toward midcentury. It will be essential that countries without the domestic capacity or financial resources to decarbonize sufficiently to reach their targets be supported by higher-income countries (CAT 2020a). Targets for the forests sector are based largely on the relative availability of land area for reforestation, and agriculture targets are based on socioeconomic and technology developments (see sections for more detail). For all sectors, higher-income countries will need to support other countries’ decarbonization pathways and help them leapfrog antiquated carbon-intensive technologies, for example, through finance, technology transfer, and other support. Future research should assess the required finance, technology-transfer, and capacity-building needs associated with supporting such transformations.

Limitations

While the scale of change described in this report is technically feasible, this report does not assess feasibility from a policy, regulatory, or societal standpoint. In many countries, significant barriers stand in the way of advancing change on this order of magnitude, and these hurdles must be overcome if we are to realize the targets described below. Furthermore, if these targets are to be successfully achieved, these transformations must be pursued in a just manner, and with care, building support over time to ensure durability and legitimacy.

Assessment of Progress toward Our Targets

In order to show a snapshot of progress, we start by collecting historical data. In some cases, no data, or limited data, exist to show how the current level of effort measures up against a particular target, and this has been noted accordingly. The historical datasets we chose were those that are open, independent of bias, reliable, consistent, and cover the greatest number of countries included in our analysis.

There is often a time lag before data become available (for most indicators assessed here between one and three years, but a handful lag between five and nine years), and the year of most recent data varies among indicators. There is another lag between implementation of climate action and its impacts. Accordingly current data may not capture change in the so-called real economy that is occurring in some countries and globally, which may lead to measurable change in indicators only several years later.

To assess progress toward the 2030 and 2050 targets, we calculate the historical rate of change for each indicator—over the last five years¹² to capture the most recent rate of change—and compare that to the rate of change needed to reach the targets for 2030 and 2050. In the large majority of cases, the rate of change needs to increase to reach the targets, so to understand how much acceleration is needed, we have calculated acceleration factors for each indicator that provide an indication of the gap in effort. These acceleration factors show whether the rate of change needs to increase twofold or twentyfold, for example.

Change very likely will not occur linearly, especially for changes that rely on technology development and deployment, so we cannot simply extrapolate from historical rates of change. The complicated process of systemic change often follows an S-curve, with change occurring at different rates during different stages in the transformation (Figure 13). Importantly, changes that seem impossible at first can, over time, develop momentum, become more durable, and expand to the point where they become the new normal (Victor et al. 2019).

Figure 13 | Systems change

Source: Victor et al. (2019).

Countries have adopted a variety of commitments, but they still fall woefully short of the required ambition to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. In 2019, 104 countries committed to enhancing their NDCs in 2020 (COP25 Presidency 2019), representing roughly 15 percent of global GHG emissions (ClimateWatch 2020a). Eleven countries had submitted NDCs to the UNFCCC by June 2020, but these countries account for only about 3 percent of global GHG emissions, and not all of these submissions reflect strengthened commitments. As of September 2020, 17 Parties had submitted their long-term strategies, representing a quarter of global GHG emissions (ClimateWatch 2020c). Yet despite this action, countries’ commitments are far off track if we are to avoid the most dangerous climate impacts. The impacts of a 1˚C world to date have affected us all—from more intense storms in regions around the world, to heat waves, to more extreme fires, and increased the odds of droughts. Even the temperature rise expected if countries implement their current climate commitments—3˚C above preindustrial levels (UNEP 2019)—will lead us to a very different world.

Cities and companies are also making strides in advancing climate action. As of September 2020, 10,932 cities and regions had committed to 12,577 climate actions registered on the UNFCCC Global Climate Action portal (UNFCCC 2020). And as of September 2020, 470 cities and regions had committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 through the Race to Zero global campaign (UNFCCC 2020). However, city-level efforts currently also fall short of the ambition needed to align with a 1.5-degree pathway (GCOM 2019).

Regarding corporate action, as of September 2020, 5,106 companies and investors had committed to 10,658 climate actions registered on the UNFCCC Global Climate Action portal (UNFCCC 2020). Almost 1,000 companies are taking science-based climate action, and 467 companies have approved targets in line with what the latest climate science says is necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement—to limit global warming to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. And as of September 2020, 995 businesses and 38 investors had committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 through the Race to Zero global campaign (UNFCCC 2020). Yet, while corporate commitment to mitigate climate change is growing, only a small fraction of the millions of companies worldwide are taking the lead.

We find that countries are increasingly prioritizing and advancing adaptation efforts given the impetus of the Paris Agreement and the impacts of climate change that communities are already experiencing around the world. And while climate finance has increased significantly in recent years, it is not on scale with the finance needed to transform our energy system and for adaptation.

Lastly, an analysis of progress toward key decarbonization targets indicates that only 2 of the 21 indicators assessed have a historical pace of change commensurate with that required through 2030 and 2050 (see Box 2). However, options exist in all sectors to align emissions trajectories with what the science suggests is necessary to avoid the worst climate impacts.

This year, in the run-up to COP26, countries are requested under the Paris Agreement to update their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and submit long-term strategies. These commitments to rapidly scale up action will be critical to ensuring that our future is safer, more equitable, and just.

Figure ES-1 | Summary of indicator assessment for sectoral emissions reductions

 

Notes a–d and g–p in the first table (Brazil) are applicable to all tables. For tables after the one for Brazil, only notes applicable to that country are included.

Brazil

Notes:

n.d. indicates no data.

a Renewables include electricity from hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, tide, wave, biofuels, and the renewable fraction of municipal waste.

b Targets are defined as percent reduction from 2015 levels. While 2017 historical data are available for most countries assessed, 2015 is chosen as the base year for establishing targets in CAT (2020).

c The IEA estimates that the typical energy renovation rate is 1–2 percent for building stock per year, with less than 15 percent energy intensity reduction in general, while deep renovation of 30–50 percent energy intensity reduction is what’s needed for a sustainable development scenario. No country-level historical data are available for this indicator.

d Historical trend data are available only for 2012–17.

e 2010 data shown for Brazil.

f Historical rate of change is not calculated here since the base level is 0.

g Initial carbon intensity of land-based passenger transport data are from 2014.

h Deforestation includes losses from commodity driven deforestation, urbanization, and shifting agriculture in primary forests.

i Historical rate of change looks at 2001–19 rather than the most recent five years in other sectors to better account for variation in deforestation year to year.

j Data are insufficient to track current levels of forest gain, so average annual tree cover gain 2000–2012 is used as a proxy.

k Average annual change target is reported from 2020 to 2030.

l National data are not available.

m An aspirational target of 100 percent emissions intensity reduction by 2050 is set for all countries. This may be achieved with innovative technologies and developments currently being researched.

n FAOSTAT emissions adjustments include a higher global warming potential value for methane (methane absorbs approximately 34 times more heat energy than carbon dioxide over a period of 100 years) based on the most recent IPCC recommendations, and a higher amount of agricultural energy use calculated by the GlobAgri-WRR model based on estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and FAO.

o Yields are weighted averages across all crops, as given in FAO (2020). Outlying observations (e.g., in former Soviet Union) are likely due to data limitations rather than being truly representative of conditions.

p Target is for 2040. No target is established for 2050 because it is expected that all buildings will be renovated by that time.

Sources: IEA (2020a, 2020g, 2019a); CAT (2020a, 2020b); GFW (2020); Roe et al. (2019); Griscom et al. (2017); FAO (2020, 2011a); Searchinger et al. (2019).

China

Notes: n.d. indicates no data.

a Two- and three-wheelers included.

b The latest available historical data for China are from 2015.

Sources: IEA (2020a, 2020g, 2019a); CAT (2020a, 2020b); GFW (2020); Roe et al. (2019); Griscom et al. (2017); FAO (2020, 2011a); Searchinger et al. (2019).

European Union (28)

Notes:

n.d. indicates no data.

a Initial carbon intensity of steel production data are from 2018.

b Historical rate of change is not calculated here since the base level is 0.

c GFW does not track data for the European Union as a whole.

d Initial carbon intensity of land-based passenger transport data are from 2014.

Sources: IEA (2020a, 2020g, 2019a); CAT (2020a, 2020b); GFW (2020); Roe et al. (2019); Griscom et al. (2017); FAO (2020, 2011a); Searchinger et al. (2019).

India