Climate Action Network Submission: Second Periodic Review

For CAN (Climate Action Network) the periodical review with UNFCCC is an important element to find best intergovernmental reactions towards anthropogenic climate change. The first periodical review has contributed with new scientific intelligence to strengthen the ultimate objective of the Climate Convention at COP 21 in Paris.

The Second Periodic Review. For the world to have a better understanding of where we are in terms of achieving the long-term temperature goals and what consequences this could have for the nationally determined mitigation targets, the Structured Expert Dialogue on the long term goal of the Paris Agreement 2020 -2022 must elaborate on the following questions:

1. What does the temperature threshold of the Paris Agreement really mean for emission reductions for regions and sectors and the remaining carbon budget? Are there potential tipping points for e.g. coastal zones from sea-level rise, food production systems, drinking water, health problems from high temperatures, global and regional ecosystems, ice sheets and sea ice at 1-2C degrees global temperature increase up to 2300? What can we learn from science on the damages and losses if we could limit warming to 1.5°C degrees compared to a limitation of warming to well below 2°C? What are the socio-economic, environmental, and ecological effects of 1.5°C overshoot scenarios?
2. How can emissions trajectories be best adapted to the 5-year ambition cycle of the Paris Agreement? For the current round of NDC revisions, there is considerable attention to and awareness of where emissions need to be in 2030 to meet temperature targets. This attention should move ahead in regular 5-year steps, so that in the 2023 GST and the next round of NDCs by 2025, the scientific community produces comparable awareness of where emissions need to be in 2035, and so on.
3. How the temperature goals in the Paris Agreement – well below 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees – are defined. Should these thresholds be understood as a multi-year or multi-decadal average? Will parties adopt the average over a 30-year period as defined by the IPCC?

CAN suggests the Second Periodic Review to consider and evaluate the following science policy analysis by Climate Analytics:

References
● https://climatenetwork.org/resource/1-5c-to-survive-evidence-from-the-ipcc-special-reports/
● https://climatenetwork.org/resource/overview-briefing-on-the-ipcc-special-report-on-climate-change-and-land/
● https://climatenetwork.org/resource/overview-briefing-on-the-ipcc-special-report-on-the-ocean-and-cryosphere/
● https://climatenetwork.org/resource/overview-briefing-on-the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/
● https://climatenetwork.org/resource/the-science-of-temperature-overshoots-impacts-uncertainties-and-implications-for-near-term-emissions-reductions/