Ԍ8climate scorecards 2009climate performance of canada, france, Germany, italy, Japan,russia, united KinGdom and united states of americaBacKGround information for china, Brazil, india, mexico andsouth africa Prepared by for Allianz and WWF
tabLe of Contentsforeword aLLianz / wwf 4 summary Summary 5 Ranking summary 12 method Explanation of the scorecards 13 Aggregation method 14CLimate sCoreCards G8 Canada 15 France 17 Germany 19 Italy 21 Japan 23 Russia 25 United Kingdom 27 United States of America 29 Comment by Allianz 31 G8 performance in carbon markets 32 G8 performance on energy efficiency 33 G8 performance on renewable energy 35CLimate sCoreCards G5 Brazil 37 China 39 India 41 Mexico 43 South Africa 45 Technical annex 47 Further reading 50
4 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009Now is the time for decisions dr. Joachim faber (left) James P. leape (right)C limate change is the greatest threat to development and prosperity on this planet, endangering peopleand cultures as well as the natural base of life. » » securing massive flows of secure and predictable funding for climate adaptation steering the transition to a low carbon future with binding financial supportWhile there might be a bailout possibility for the financialsystem, no amounts of money will save the planet once For the third consecutive year, Allianz and WWF are joint-climate change crosses the danger threshold. It is therefore ly presenting the Climate Scorecards 2009. Our Strategiccrucial to limit the rise of global temperature to below two Partnership is based on the belief that the financial sectordegrees compared to pre-industrial levels. has a key role to play to avert dangerous climate change. Allianz is committed to putting climate change right at theThe writing is on the wall and the latest findings of climate center of its business strategy, both on a products and anscience are even more alarming. The urgency is real and investment side.accepted by all. Now is the time to act. Our contribution in the context of the G8 summits is theThe opportunity to set the world on a more sustainable provision of an annual analysis of the G8 national effortscourse comes in December, when a decisive UN Summit to tackle climate change. The 2009 edition shows thatin Copenhagen will see the final round of negotiations while some efforts exist, action remains insufficient to setfor a new climate treaty, following the first phase of the the world on a low carbon economy course.Kyoto Protocol. In the report, we provide a series of recommendationsIn this context it is particularly important that World and concrete actions that political and business leadersLeaders meeting at the G8 Summit and Major Economies must take to avoid dangerous climate change.Forum in July set the scene for success in Copenhagen.They can do this by:» clearly committing to deep emission reductions in Dr. Joachim Faber James P. Leape line with the 2 degree threshold Board Member Allianz SE director General WWF
5 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009Summarythe G8 in a CruCiaL CLimate year » Action now can help develop a low carbon economy that helps avoiding millions of climate refugees ands cientists warn more strongly than ever that the expected climate impacts exceed even the mostchallenging models of the Nobel-prize winning Inter- massive cost for later adaptation to climate impacts.governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). testinG G8 Leaders’ wiLLinGness to aCtWe do, however, still have a window of opportunity to WWF and Allianz present the Climate Scorecards 2009.keep climate change and the warming of the atmosphere These score the developments in national legislation andbelow the danger threshold defined as a 2°C rise of aver- implementation of climate protection.age global temperatures, compared to pre-industrial times. The scorecards look back at achievements and the lackTo realize this, we need to put the world on a pathway of them. Based on this insight, leaders at the G8 Summitwhere global emissions peak and decline well before can grasp the opportunity and signal to the world how2020 and are reduced by more than 80 % below 1990 the course is changing. The analysis shows that action islevels by 2050. underway in all countries but it is by far insufficient to keep the planet below the danger threshold of a 2°C rise2009 is a crucial year for climate change: at a pivotal UN of average global temperature above pre-industrial levels.conference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, govern-ments of the world need to agree the continuation of the New developments at the legal and practical level need toglobal climate treaty, building on and strengthening the be introduced with much greater vigor and rapidity thanKyoto Protocol. our scoring shows so far.The G8 leaders meeting in Italy this July have the oppor- A simple 4-point test will reveal whether they will wintunity to set the course for the Copenhagen conference to or fail:succeed. In doing this they will realize the triple advan- » Leaders commit to a strong UN climate agreement intage of action against climate change: Copenhagen in December as a key lever for economic recovery.» Action now will start to clean up our climate act, keep- » To take advantage of the opportunities of climate ing the option open for the planet to avoid catastrophic action, leaders commit to increase their ambition climate change. level by setting strict emission reduction targets for» Action now will set the world on a sustainable energy their own countries. path, which in the short run can help stabilize the » Leaders acknowledge their responsibility to provide economy, and in a few decades can provide ample support to the most vulnerable countries for coping energy for the whole planet. with those impacts of climate change that are already unavoidable. » Leaders agree with the large emerging economies the need for fair and pragmatic cooperation on technol- ogy, to ensure rapid deployment and diffusion of the cleanest technologies, as well as providing adequate finance to developing countries for low-carbon devel- opment.
6 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009sharinG the remaininG Carbon the assessment - Country aCtionsbudGet fairLy are stiLL too sLowIt is critical for world leaders to recognize that only a Individual countries have reacted differently to the climatelimited atmospheric carbon budget remains, beyond challenge. Each country is unique in its starting position,which climate impacts will be catastrophic, and that the including the economic activities that result in greenhousebulk of that remaining budget must be allocated to the gas emissions, its level of development, industrial struc-developing world. ture, availability of natural resources and public percep- tions. Accordingly, improvements since 1990, currentThe atmospheric carbon budget is defined as the envi- status and policies for the future vary significantly.ronmental space for additional CO2 pollution to ensurewarming stays well below the 2°C danger threshold. The G8 climate scorecards provide a comparable snap-Leaders will have to focus on how to share that carbon shot of the current situation across the G8 countries asbudget. The decision needs to be based on the principle well as the five major developing countries. They presentof common but differentiated responsibility (of the recent and expected emission developments of eachcountries, dependent on their historical emissions) and country and various other indicators. The scorecards alsocapacity to act (e.g. relative wealth, level of R&D). give an overview of the most important activities by the federal governments to respond to the threat of climateLeaving a margin for economic growth in developing change.countries, industrialized countries need to decrease theiremissions by at least 95 % by the year 2050 (contributing The overall performance of the G8 countries is assessedto bringing about a reduction of global emissions by at by comparing three groups of indicators: “improvementsleast 80 %). Current trends are still going in the opposite since 1990”, “current status” and “policies for the future”.direction, with high emissions in developed countries and In addition, G8 countries’ performance in the areas ofgrowing emissions in most developing countries. energy efficiency, renewable energy and the development of the carbon market are summarized separately.The G8 also have a responsibility to drive global coop-eration with the G5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and The core benchmark of this assessment is whether coun-South Africa) and other developing countries to foster tries are on track to reduce emissions by 95 % until 2050.sustainable development through technology transfer and As such, the rating of this year’s version is more ambi-financing. Strong political signals from the G8 summit in tious compared to last year’s version where the bench-July that G8 leaders are willing to cooperate with devel- mark was a reduction of 80 % by 2050. This reflects theoping countries are necessary to making UN climate growing urgency of climate science. Major policies thattalks in Copenhagen this December a success. The ques- are planned but not yet approved have been incorporatedtion remains as to how G8 countries will assist these into the evaluation but given less weight. WWF does notcountries in developing in a less carbon intensive mannerand how much effort they will undertake themselves.
7 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, due regional climate risk insurance schemes. Together,to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation these should be in the order of US$ 63 billion perimpacts. To reflect this, a policy approach that favors the year.use of nuclear power was assessed in the following way: » A new institution, the Copenhagen Finance FacilityIndicators for the “current status” were adjusted, by as- should be set up to steer the transition to a lowsuming that electricity from nuclear energy was produced carbon future with binding financial support of atwith gas, the most carbon efficient fossil fuel. least US$160 billion per year by 2017 from industri- alized countries.Key expeCtations for a suCCessfuLCopenhaGen CLimate treaty the G8 domestiC ChaLLenGe – best praCtiCe for aLL performanCe indi-The WWF Expectations Paper for the global climate deal Catorsand an NGO proposal for the treaty, published in Junethis year, outline what needs to be agreed at the Copen- The rating of the G8 countries is based on the assump-hagen Climate Summit in December 2009. It lists the key tion that a country that adequately addresses the issueasks and ideas for an adequate and fair treaty that will of climate change to safeguard the 2°C limit should meethelp keep global warming far below the danger threshold the performance indicators noted below. Meeting theseof 2°C. criteria is rewarded with a green dot in the respective category.The central asks for a powerful, transformational ClimateTreaty can be summarized as follows: improvements since 1990» Global emissions must peak in the next commitment » Have reduced emissions between 1990 and 2007 to be period (before 2020). on a linear path from 1990 to - 95 % in 2050. - Only» Industrialized countries as a group should commit to emissions in Russia have declined more, mainly due binding absolute emission reduction targets at 40 % to the economic downturn between 1990 and 1999 below 1990 levels by 2020, the vast majority of these and emissions have risen again since then. Emissions being achieved domestically (30-35 %). They should are still steadily increasing in Canada and the USA. also commit to put in place Zero Carbon Action Plans » Have already reached or are very close to the Kyoto (ZCAPs) to achieve zero net emissions (at least -95 %) target, which applies to the period of 2008 to 2012. by 2050. - Only Russia, France, UK and Germany are in this» Developing countries as a group should pledge to re- position. duce their actual emissions substantially by deviating » Have increased the use of renewable energy signifi- by at least 30 % below a business as usual pathway cantly since 1990. - This is only true for Germany. by 2020. The share of renewable energy is declining or stag-» Adaptation Action Framework: Massive flows of se- nating in four of the eight countries (Canada, France, cure and predictable funding delivered through well- Japan and USA). governed and effective funding mechanisms, plus Current status » Have per capita emissions on a linear path from the average level of all developed countries in 1990 to -95 % in 2050. - Only Italy achieves this goal, due to its economic structure.
8 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009 figure 1 improvements since 1990 Current status Policies for the future Canada usa russia japan italy france uKGermany 0% 5% % % % % 0% 5% % % % % 0% 5% % % % % 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25 » Produce fewer emissions per GDP than the average All G8 countries are underperforming here, even the of all developed countries on a path towards -95 % in European countries with an emissions trading system, 2050. - Only the UK and Italy qualify here. as the overall cap is not ambitious enough. » Produce electricity on average with fewer emissions » Have covered all emissions from industry with ambi- per kWh than using natural gas and without nuclear tious policies. - The UK comes closest with innovative power. - Only Canada meets this criterion, due to its and comprehensive policy making. historical use of hydro power. This indicator was ad- » Have ambitious polices in place to reduce all direct justed to account for electricity from nuclear energy fuel emissions in the households and service sector. - as if being generated by gas. None of the G8 countries tap the full energy efficiency » Use only 24 % more energy in industry than the best potential in this sector. available technology. - Only Japan qualifies here, but » Have policies in place that start to transform the trans- in some Japanese industries the efficiency is decreas- port sector. - Policy making in this sector is largely ing again. underdeveloped. Stringent, ambitious or binding mea- sures are mostly lacking. Only Japan has “top runner” policies for the future standards for vehicle efficiency. The US has recently » Show leadership in the international climate nego- improved its automobile standards, but they are still tiations. - Most of the G8 countries are either too below best available international standards. silent or actively block the process at the UN level or » Have successful measures in place to support the use within the EU on some or many aspects. - The UK, of renewable energy. – Only Germany is performing Germany and the US are rated best since they have here, all other G8 countries are underperforming. pushed the issue of climate change to a high political level. However the UK and Germany have blocked figure 1 provides an overview of the scoring of the G8 progress on crucial issues, together with other EU countries. The three areas, i.e. improvements since 1990, countries, in the recent EU internal climate negotia- current status, and policies for the future are weighted tions and the US has not set a target that increases equally. figure 2 provides the overall rating. in ambition with international action. » Have ambitious policies in place to decarbonize the power sector and to reduce demand for electricity. -
9 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009 improvements since 1990 figure 2 Current status Summary of G8 countries’ climate performance. 100 % is the maximum score Policies for the future Canada usa russia japan italy france uKGermany 0% % % % % % % % % % 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 Canada and russia have faiLed the test the legislative process. The agreed economic recov- ery package includes substantial support for energy » Canada scores lowest of all G8 countries: total emis- efficiency and renewable energy. The package and sions are steadily increasing and are far above the the new plans led to the improvement in rank. Several Kyoto target, per capita emissions are among the state and regional climate initiatives are reducing highest in the world. Mid to long-term greenhouse gas emissions, but these were not rated in this study. targets are inadequate. A plan to curb emissions was Overall, there has been more action in the US on developed last year but has not been implemented. climate change in the last four months than in the last The Kyoto target will stay completely out of reach. three decades – a trend that will hopefully continue in » Russia is rated only well for the “past trend” category the coming years. However, the United States are still due to declining absolute emissions in the early 1990s. the largest total emitter of the G8 countries, and have But since 1999 emissions have been increasing steadily among the highest per capita emissions in the world. again. Few policies are in place to curb emissions. Re- Furthermore, its emissions are projected to continue cent high-level government goals exist but still need to increase. The United States have also not ratified to be implemented. the Kyoto Protocol. usa is improvinG on future poLiCies japan and itaLy have reLativeLy Low emissions (per Capita, per Gdp and per » The United States have improved compared to last industriaL produCtion) but poLiCies year’s rating, moving up in rank from last place. In are inadequate to reduCe emissions the “policies for the future” category the US even further: rank fourth. The new Obama administration has presented ambitious plans for new climate change » Japan has relatively low emissions due to high energy related policies, some of which have already been efficiency and its use of nuclear power (which WWF implemented, and others that still have to undergo does not consider a viable alternative option, due to
10 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009 its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation reduction target for GHG emissions by 2020. Imple- impacts). However, absolute emissions are not declin- mentation of this target is however lagging behind ing and are still above the 1990 level. The recently due to supporting less stringent rules in the emission announced emission target for 2020 is incompatible trading system during the EU climate negotiations, no with the 2°C limit. No mandatory emission reduction clear action against planned new coal power stations policies are implemented. The lack of such policies and not sufficiently stringent action on transport. led to the relatively low rank of Japan. » As EU member states, all three support the EU green-» Italy’s per capita emissions are at the low end of the house gas emission reduction targets for 2020 as well G8 due to its economic structure. But Italy’s absolute as EU energy efficiency and renewables targets. The emissions have increased considerably since 1990 early announcement of the target was very construc- and are well above the Kyoto target. The country has tive for the international debate. However, in the light started some policy efforts, but in general policy is of recent scientific findings, even the more ambitious weak and a strategic approach is lacking. variant of a 30 % reduction by 2020 with an interna- tional agreement on climate change is not stringent enough.franCe, uK and Germany performbetter than the other G8 Countries,but are stiLL not maKinG an adequate the G5Contribution to KeepinG GLobaLCLimate ChanGe beLow the 2°C Limit: The G5 have not been scored in the same manner as the G8 countries due to their different national circumstances» Emissions in France are relatively low for an industri- and levels of development. Also some of the rating cri- alized country, partially due to a high share of nuclear teria cannot be applied to the G5, e.g. distance to Kyoto energy (which WWF does not consider a viable policy goal. option). Due to the adjusted assessment for nuclear energy used in this rating, France moved to third All of the five developing countries are undertaking ac- place. Total emissions have only slightly declined tion to slow emissions growth in the future: since 1990. » All countries have presented or are preparing national» The UK’s emissions are already below the Kyoto strategies to reduce emissions in the future. The most target, largely due to a transition from coal to gas in detailed plans were presented by South Africa and the 1990s. The strong national climate debate has led Mexico. South Africa acknowledges that their emis- to innovative national policies, such as the Climate sions need to be reduced by 30 % by 2050. Mexico Change Act, and there is potential for this to drive announced a 50 % cut by 2050. significant emission reductions in the future in areas » Support for renewables is significant e.g. in China, where progress has been lacking: renewables, trans- South Africa and India or a longstanding support for port, households and services. bioethanol in Brazil.» Germany leads the ranking only very slightly ahead » China and India have substantial national energy ef- of the UK. Germany’s emissions declined between ficiency targets/objectives of reducing energy use per 1990 and 2000 partly due to the economic downturn GDP by 20 % in 5 years (China) and 9 years (India). in Eastern Germany but also due to national measures. Their implementation would have a significant effect Since then, emissions have been declining only slow- on emissions. China negotiated energy reduction tar- ly. Germany is successful with its promotion of new gets for 1000 most energy-intensive enterprises which renewable energy sources and has an ambitious -40 % are now being implemented.
11 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009» Brazil has very ambitious plans to reduce deforesta- » The economic crisis has not yet watered down the tion, its most important source of emissions. The ambition levels of countries. There is a general re- implementation of these plans will be difficult, but cognition that well-designed and properly spent would reduce emissions significantly. public money can benefit economic development and employment as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.some reCent overaLL positivedeveLopments are to be hiGhLiGhted: neGative deveLopments in some» The new Obama administration has made climate Countries’ CLimate performanCe: change a priority. Several clean energy initiatives are already underway and Congress has taken up » Despite 20 years having passed since the international climate-related legislation. The emission projections recognition of climate change as a problem, green- were corrected downwards as a result of the agreed house gas emissions in some developed countries are economic stimulus package. The Administration has still increasing. committed to participating in the international climate » Economic recovery packages for many countries change negotiations. Such new actions, in conjunction have mostly missed the opportunity for greening with ongoing state and regional climate initiatives, the global economy. The stimulus for weak econo- signal a real change for the USA. mies would have been a unique opportunity to make» With action in the USA, competitiveness concerns of significant investments in a climate friendly future. the industry could be removed, enabling more ambi- However most packages only include a few climate tious targets for all countries. friendly measures. Some are even counterproductive.1» All major developing countries are making signifi- » Uncertainty about the future of emission reduction cant efforts to slow emission growth. Most promi- projects in developing countries under the clean nently, Mexico aims to reduce its emissions by 50 % development mechanism (CDM) has increased due until 2050. to falling carbon prices as a reaction to the financial crisis, criticism of the performance of the mechanism2 and the uncertain outcome of the Copenhagen Climate conference in December 2009.1 See “Economic/climate recovery scorecards - How climate friendly are the economic recovery packages?” of April 2009, http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/E3G-WWF_Economic_Climate_recovery_scorecards.pdf2 See report published by WWF in May 2009 “A rating of designated operational Entities (doEs) Accredited under the Clean development Mechanism (CdM) Scope,methodology and results” http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/pdf_neu/WWF_Rating_der_Klimagutachter.pdf.
Canada usa russia japan itaLy franCe uK Germany Pa s fro t em m iss 19 ion 90 since 1990 Cu to trend rre 20 to nt d 07 improvements the is Ky tanc inc oto e r tar ren ease ge ew of t ab the le e sh ne are rgy so of urc es Em iss ion sp er Em ca pit iss ion a Current status sp er Co Gd 2 p P er kW he En lec erg tric in i y e ity nd ffic us ien try cy le a climdersh ate ip in Ele ne ctr go icit tiat ion y/ s Ranking summary nu ind cle us ar try policies for the future Ho us eh old sa Tra nd n sp ser vic ort e s re ne wa ble s ranking8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2009 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 12
13 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009Explanationof the scorecardsTraffic light Traffic lights GeneralA visualisation of the approximate overall An approximate climate policiesclimate performance taking into account the indication how these A brief descriptionemission indicators and the climate policies. indicators relate to of the general climateThe benchmark is, whether a country is on a the necessary level to policies put inpath to keep the global-average temperature stay below the 2°C place by the nationalincrease below 2°C in comparison with pre- limit. government.industrial levels. summary sector policies evaluation and traffic lights A general evalu- 22 23 A description of ation of the coun- G8 Climate Scorecard G8 Climate SCoreCardS 2009 the status of the tries’ climate per- Italy ˗ Rank 4 climate policies in formance based place in different on the information sectors. Assess- provided below. ment of the rela- Summary Evaluation ClimatE poliCiES » Emission rates are average/low compared to the industrialized countries’ average due GEnEral to economic structure tive comparison » Ratified UNFCCC on 15.04.1994, ratified Kyoto Protocol on 31.05.2002 » Emissions are considerably above Kyoto target and are projected to increase further » agreed to eu targets for 2020: to unilaterally reduce GHG emissions 20 % below 1990 levels and 30 % if other countries commit to similar efforts, to reduce energy consumption by 20 % and increase renewables to a national 17 % share » Overall climate policy approach is weak » No use of nuclear power since 1987, but decisions have been made for its reintroduction leadership in climate negotiations Insufficient implementation of its Kyoto target; has been blocking progress within the EU’s internal decision-making on the energy and climate package of the ambition EmiSSionS and EnErGy Electricity/ nuclear Participant in the EU Emission Trading Scheme; moderate allocation for 2008 to 2012 and no limit for new entrants; tradable energy efficiency certificates (white certificates); financial incentives for combined heat and power; projected level and compre- new coal power installations not compatible with present Kyoto targets; state aid to power plants jeopardizes efficient EmiSSion trEndS Past emission trend from 1990 to 2007 +7.1 % policy in curbing Co2 emissions; no use of nuclear power currently but a decision has recently been made to reintro- duce nuclear power; clean energy strategy is missing; only class A electrical appliances can be sold after 2010 and no stand-by allowed after 2010; no incandescent bulbs after 2011 hensiveness of policies. [mt Co eq.] 700 emissions (excl. industry Half of industry emissions covered by EU Emission Trading Scheme; tradable energy efficiency certificates (white cer- Current (2007) 600 forestry and tificates), with new targets for the 2010-2012 period; negotiated agreements; tax rebate for high efficiency motors and emission trends int. transport) distance to the 500 inverters; CO2 tax not weighted on real carbon content of energy sources; energy consumption per GDP increased emission Kyoto target +13.6 %-points 400 projection 300 Kyoto target Households Financial incentive for solar thermal installations and efficiency improvements; supporting measures at regional and increase of the and services local level for renewable heat or cooling; tax rebate for energy efficiency investments up to 2010; mandatory standards includes the 200 emissions forestry share of renewable for new buildings; energy efficiency certification of building is in progress but still not in place, with implementing de- 100 energy sources +2.8 %-points crees still under approval (recently the government abolished the obligation to enclose the energy certificate when a 0 building is sold or leased) -100 historical trend and -200 emissions per capita 9 tCo2eq./cap transport Mandatory EU emission limit value for new cars of 130 g/km to be phased in from 2012 to 2015; incentives for the 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 purchasing of low-emission vehicles; biofuels tax exemption then transformed in green certificate obligation; measures for economic recovery include major funds for new roads future projections emissions per GdP 328 tCo2eq./m$ renewables Renewable certificates, new feed-in tariff; old feed-in system (CIP6) still in place, which has been criticized for using government revenue to support fossil fuels; tax credit for geothermal energy and biomass; small plants (up to 1 MW) have choice between being granted green certificates and receiving feed-in tariff; renewable incentive scheme ham- of emissions of EmiSSionS by SECtor electricity EnErGy SourCES Solar / Wind / others 0.16% Biomass / Waste 3% Co2 per kWh electricity 404 gCo2/kWh pered by administrative barriers those green- Waste 3% & heating 30% Geothermal 3% Coal 9% agriculture 7% Hydro 2% Nuclear 0% oil 45% mariaGrazia midulla, HEad of ClimatE and EnErGy, WWf italy » italy laCKS adequate Energy efficiency in industry 1.3 house gases and Households Climate PoliCieS aNd StrateGieS. additioNally tHe CouNter-ProduCtive iNveStmeNtS iNto & services 15% emissions NuClear eNerGy aNd Coal ratHer tHaN iNto CleaN teCHNoloGieS aNd eNerGy effiCieNCy raiSe douBtS aBout tHe real leaderSHiP role tHat italy SHould Be aBle to SHoW aS statement wwf industry 21% in transport sectors that are per capita 2.2 tCo2eq./cap PreSideNt of tHe G8. « transport 23% Gas 38% emissions in households relevant under the and services per capita 1.4 tCo2eq./cap A statement of Kyoto Protocol in national WWF comparison to the climate heads Kyoto target. commenting the performance of their country.emissions by sectors indicatorsincludes the split of emissions » past emission trends over the whole economyinto the different sectors. it » Current distance to the Kyoto target asshows which activities are magnitude of emission reductions still necessaryresponsible for the emissions. to reach the Kyoto targetExcludes emissions from in- » Change in share of renewable energy sourcesternational transport and land showing efforts made to use more renewable energyUse Change & Forestry. since 1990 » emissions per capita » emission per Gross domestic product » Co2 per kwh electricity of electricity productionenergy sources (national aggregate)As most greenhouse gas emissions » Energy efficiency in industry as a qualitativeoriginate from energy use, it is instructive aggregate for major industriesto examine the energy mix of a country. » Greenhouse gas emissions in transportThe chart shows the primary energy per capitaconsumption, which includes also energy » Greenhouse gas emissions in households andthat is consumed but not used such as services per capita excluding emissions from usewaste heat. of electricity
14 G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS 2009 Aggregation method The overall performance of the G8 countries is assessed a green rating (+0.5) is chosen in line with keeping global by comparing three groups of indicators: improvements average temperature increase below 2°C. In each sector since 1990, current status, and policies for the future. They policies are rated at between -2.5 (lacking or symbolic) are weighted at a third each. and +2.5 (ambitious and/or very innovative) by expert judgment. The weight given to this indicator is different improvements since 1990 includes emission trends for each country; it is proportional to the sector’s share of since 1990, the current distance to the Kyoto target and national emissions. A country with very high emissions the increase in the share of renewable energy since 1990. in e.g. transport has to have very good transport policies, while a country with already very low emissions in e.g. Current status includes national emissions per capita electricity generation can have weak policies. and per Gross Domestic Product in 2007 as well as the electricity sector’s emissions per electricity production in All indicators are aggregated using the weightings shown 2007 and the efficiency in industry. below. Finally, the scores (between -2.5 to +2.5) for each indicator, each policy field and the summary climate per- policies for the future are rated for each of the major formance are translated into colored dots or traffic lights. sectors. Additionally the support for renewable energy and the leadership in climate negotiations are also rated. WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy Policies included in the rating are only those implemented option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and by national governments (not sub-national governments), proliferation impacts. In this report focusing on climate since the G8 scorecards are targeted at the heads of state. policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear Some countries have major new policies in the pipeline, power is hence adjusted. The indicators emissions per but agreement has not yet fully been reached by the gov- capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as ernment institutions. In such cases, the implemented and if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had planned policies are weighted at 75 % vs. 25 %. produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). A country using nuclear energy is therefore rated as a For each numerical indicator, a score of between -2.5 and country using gas, the most efficient fossil fuel. +2.5 is given, where the extremes are the worst and best performance within developed countries not considering Further detail on the method and data sources is provided small country outliers outside of the G8. The threshold to in the technical annex.* Weighted individually per country by the improvements since 1990: 1/3 Current status: 1/3 policies for the future: 1/3 sector’s share of national emissions, n t 1 to les in ap dP 5.5 h 5.5 n ion e x % ar x % try x % nd x % rt s % 1% % % % % % 5% 5% e.g. for Canada the ble tiat limat tre issio 2 /kW i po * * * * le tar Kyo ab se 11 cy 11 11 11 us s/c vic s a s/G uc ns wa ew rea ind cien indweight is 9 % for elec- ser ehold nd em ion ne hip c y/n Co try ge Tra to ion ne es ren inc iss Effi us ce icit st re isstricity, 5 % for industry, go ers us Pa Em tan ctr Em Ho ad 3 % for households Ele Dis le and services and 7 % for transport CLimate performanCe -2.5 to -0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 0.5 to 2.5