climate change performance index 2011

8/8/2019 Climate Change Performance Index 2011

1/20

Results 2011

T h e C l i m a t e C h a n g e

P e r f o r m a n c e I n d e x


2/20

2

Germanwatch

Germanwatch - Bonn OfceKaiserstrasse 20153113 Bonn, GermanyPh.: +49 (0) 228 - 60492-0Fax: +49 (0) 228 - 60492-19

Germanwatch - Berlin Ofce

Schibauerdamm 1510117 Berlin, GermanyPh.: +49 (0) 30 - 28 88 356-0Fax: +49 (0) 30 - 28 88 356-1

E-Mail: [email protected]

CAN

Climate Action Network EuropeRue dEdimbourg 261050 BrusselsBelgium

Tel: +32 (0) 28 94 46 70Fax: +32 (0) 28 94 46 80

Email: [email protected]

Authors: Jan Burck, Christoph Bals, Lindsay Parker

Editing: Katrin Fillies, Simone Ackermann,Gerold Kier

Design: Dietmar Putscher, Colognewww.dietmar-putscher.de

Printed on 100% recycled paper

December 2010

Purchase Order Number: 11-2-01e

ISBN: 978-3-939846-73-4

This publication can be downloaded at:www.germanwatch.org/ccpi

With fnancial support rom the European Union

andthe Gertrud and Hellmut Barthel Foundation


3/20

3

Dear Reader,

The Climate Change PerormanceIndex aims to enhance transpar-ency on national and internationaleorts to avoid dangerous climatechange. On the one hand, this toolquickly shows who is doing whatregarding climate change. On theother hand, it provides more inormation about thestrengths and weaknesses o the dierent countriesin the various sectors.

The ollowing publication is issued by Germanwatchand CAN Europe. However, none o this could havebeen possible without the help o the 190 energyand climate policy experts rom around the world.Each o these experts has greatly assisted us by tak-ing their time to provide us with invaluable reviewso their national climate and energy policy. These ex-perts are working hard in their own countries to fghtor the climate policy that we desperately need.

Best regards,

Jan Burck

Foreword

Contents

Foreword 3

1. ConclusionPost Copenhagen Where do we stand? 4

2. IntroductionClimate Protection: Who is Doing What? 5

3. Overall Results

Climate Change Perormance Index 2011 6CCPI World Map 8

4. Partial Results4.1 Emissions Trend 104.2 Emissions Level 124.3 Climate Policy 14

5. Country Comparison: USA and China 16

6. Climate Change Perormance Indexby Country Group 18

7. Sources 19


4/20

4

Last years climate negotiations in Copenhagen

ailed to produce an international binding agree-

ment to lower global CO2 emissions. It is unclearwhat the two summits in Mexico (Cancn) and South

Arica will deliver. Generally, the index shows a shit

in the rankings compared to last year. Previously,

national climate policy scores have been poorer

than international scores. Now, the opposite is true:

national actions are currently more dynamic than

international negotiations. However, there are signs

o a new international strategy on how to move or-

ward this year and in the uture. The Climate Change

Perormance Index (CCPI) has the unique ability to

document these developments through its strong

review o national and international trends and

policy assessments.

Brazil is, same as last year, the leading country in theindex. In all three categories (energy and emissionslevel, emissions trend and policy ranking) Brazil isamong the top 15 countries. Moreover, its policyranking has urther improved since the previous year.This is partially due to the advancements in diplo-matic eorts on climate issues in preparation or theRio-plus-20 summit in 2012. Furthermore, Brazil has

decreased its deorestation rate, which constitutesa majority o its emissions. Although deorestationis a strong contributing actor to experts judgemento policy, one o the limitations o this index is thatit doesnt take deorestation and land-use emissionsinto account due to lack o international data avail-ability.

Also like last year, no country has perormed wellenough to place into the irst three ranks. Theseare reserved or countries which have reduced percapita emissions enough to meet the requirements

to keep the increase in global temperature belowto 2C.

One contributing actor to this years index is theinancial crisis o 2008, which, as a positive side

eect, had a avourable inluence on emissionstrends and, consequently, this years rankings. Theloss in industrial production has caused some coun-tries to even exceed national emissions reductiontargets. Subsequently, the resulting stimulus pack-ages also provided several countries with a new set-ting or enhanced climate fnancing and a push ornew projects.1

Chinas climate perormance is ull o contradictions.While China remains the worlds largest CO2 emit-ter (with a growing gap between itsel and all othercountries), the ocus on national emissions reduc-tion policy is rapidly intensiying through nation-ally binding energy intensity reduction targets anda three percent renewable energy portolio require-ment. By now, China is installing about hal o theglobal renewable energy capacity.

In Germany, or the irst time, there is a nationalplan to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 to 95 per-cent compared to 1990 levels, as well as an emissionsreduction roadmap. However, Germany did not

improve in the ranking. The new energy concept hasnot won avour with NGO experts owing to its inclu-sion o a lietime extension o nuclear power plants,which strongly discourages investments in renew-able energy, impairing its growth. The NGO expertsin Germany urther criticize the gap between theambitious targets or greenhouse gas reduction,energy eiciency and renewable energy and thenecessary policy instruments to reach them.

Thanks to President Barack Obama, the US hasexperienced a boost in climate protection policy in

contrast to during the George W. Bush administra-tion. Over ten percent o the American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act has been allocated towards

1. Conclusion

Post Copenhagen Where do we stand?

1 see Phillips (2009)


5/20

5

2. Introduction

Climate Protection: Who is Doing What?The Climate Change Perormance Index is an innova-tive instrument that enhances transparency in inter-national climate politics. On the basis o standard-ised criteria, the index evaluates and compares theclimate protection perormance o 57 countries thatare together responsible or more than 90 percento global energy-related CO2 emissions.

Eighty percent o the evaluation is based on objec-

tive indicators o emissions trend and emissionslevel.2 Twenty percent results rom national andinternational climate policy assessments by 190 ex-perts rom the respective countries. The aim o theindex is to encourage political and social pressureon those countries which have, heretoore, ailedto take the initiative on climate protection or whichstill neglect the importance o this issue.

The overall results (table 1) clearly show which coun-tries have the longest way to go in order to catch upwith those leading. Nevertheless, even countrieswith high rankings have no reason to sit back and re-lax. On the contrary, the results illustrate that eveni all countries were as engaged as the current ore-runners, eorts would still be insufcient to pre-vent dangerous climate change3. Hence, again thisyear, no country was awarded the frst three rank-

ings.

The poor perormance o most o the ten largestCO2 emitters (table 2) is particularly alarming. Thesecountries account or more than 60 percent o globalCO2 emissions. Thereore, their uture willingnessand ability to pursue a sustainable climate policy isa requirement to avoid a highly dangerous level oclimate change.

2 Regarding the emissions trends, the CCPI compares the time period between 2003 and 2008. For the emissions level, data romthe last three available years (2006 to 2008) is taken into account.

3 The most serious consequences o global warming (dangerous climate change) might be avoided i global average temperatureswill not exceed 2 C above pre-industrial levels. To ensure this, global GHG emissions must be reduced by 80 percent by 2050.

renewable energy and energy eiciency projects.Also, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)can now use its use authority to regulate greenhousegases. However, the US hasnt agreed on a compre-hensive climate and energy bill and, due to this, theUS is incapable o reaching the weak pledges o theCopenhagen Accord and is not able to take the lead

in the UN negotiations. As a result, the US lost onerank in this years ranking. The US policy must beimproved considerably. However, especially owingto the recent split in Congress, it will be prooundlydifcult to move orward on a comprehensive energyand climate agenda.

Another distinct change within the index isDenmarks large drop by 16 ranks (rom rank 17 to 33)mainly due to its low scores or international climatepolicy. This shit is largely a result o the tragedy othe UN Climate Conerence in Copenhagen (COP15),where many observers saw the COP presidency othe Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen as the worst

perormance in leadership dilivered by a COP presi-dency. In contrast, ormer Danish EnvironmentalMinister Connie Hedegaards preparation or theCOP15 received very good rankings last year.


6/20

6

3. Overall Results

Climate Change Performance Index 2011

Table 1:

* None o the countries achieved positions one to three.No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change.

Rank Country Score** Partial ScoreTendency Trend Level Policy


1*

2*

3*

4 R Brazil 70.5

5 RSweden 69.9

6 E Norway 67.0

7 R Germany 67.0

8 T United Kingdom 65.9

9 T France 64.6

10 T India 64.1

11 R Mexico 64.0

12 E Malta 63.8

13 R Switzerland 63.6

14 TPortugal 63.4

15 T Latvia 61.9

16 E Hungary 61.8

17 T Belgium 61.5

18 E Slovakia 60.5

19 E Thailand 59.8

20 EIreland 59.8

21 E Indonesia 59.7

22 T Lithuania 59.5

23 E Morocco 59.4

24 T Iceland 58.7

25 E Belarus 57.6

26 T Algeria 57.5

27 T Czech Republic 57.5

28 E Romania 57.0

29 R South Arica 56.6

30 T Netherlands 56.4

31 E Finland 55.1

32 E Singapore 55.0

33 U Denmark 54.6

34 E Korea, Rep. 54.5

35 T Spain 54.4

36 E Ukraine 54.1

37 W New Zealand 53.7

39 T Japan 53.1

39 W Cyprus 53.0

40 EAustria 52.9

Germanwatch 2010** roundedcomparison with previous year Germanwatch 2010** roundedcomparison with previous year


7/20

7

Country Share o Global

CO2 Emissions*

CCPI Rank

2011 (2010)

Germany 2.74 % 7 (7)

United Kingdom 1.74 % 8 (6)

India 4.86 % 10 (9)

Korea, Rep. 1.71 % 34 (41)

Japan 3.92 % 38 (35)

Russia 5.42 % 48 (45)

Iran 1.72 % 52 (38)

USA 19.05 % 54 (53)

China 22.29 % 56 (52)

Canada 1.88 % 57 (59)

Germanwatch 2010* energy related

Table 2:Index ranking o the 10 largest CO2 Emitters

Emissions Trend (50% weighting)

Emissions Level (30% weighting)

Climate Policy (20% weighting)

Rating

Index Categories

Very good

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very poor


41 E Italy 52.7

42 T Estonia 52.7

43 W Greece 52.4

44 U Argentina 52.4

45 T Slovenia 51.4

46 E Croatia 50.2

47 R Chinese Taipei 50.2

48 T Russia 49.8

49 T Bulgaria 49.6

50 U Turkey 49.0

51 E Luxembourg 48.3

52 U Iran 47.2

53 T Malaysia 47.1

54 T USA 46.5

55 T Poland 46.3

56 T China 44.9

57 E Canada 43.9

58 T Australia 42.9

59 T Kazakhstan 42.5

60 RSaudi Arabia 25.8

Germanwatch 2010** roundedcomparison with previous year


8/20

Germanwatch 2010

Map 1a

Map 1b

8

As portrayed in the world map, the highest rankings(apart rom the three top placements) are awardedto newly industrialised countries, namely Brazil,India and Mexico, as well as to EU countries. Thesenations are listed as relative global leaders in climatechange perormance. Due to the lack o reliable dataon issues such as deorestation and land use, makingup around 20 percent o global greenhouse gases(GHGs), the index only ocuses on energy-relatedemissions, making up roughly 60 percent o GHGs.

Especially in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia,where emissions rom deorestation amount to80 and 45 percent o total emissions respectively,

eorts to reduce orest emissions must increase andfnancial support rom the international communitymust be provided. It is encouraging that Brazil wasable to cut its deorestation rate by at least 50 per-cent during the last ew years. But it is necessary tohave a closer look i this process is likely to continue.

Overall, mostly due to discouraging emissions lev-els and trends, the three lowest-ranking countriesare Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and Australia, despite

Australias relatively satisactory policy evaluations.

Contrastingly, within the top ten countries, Norwayimproved its perormance the most. This can be at-

3. Overall Results CCPI World Map


9/20

Germanwatch 2010

9

tributed to its improved emissions trend and overallimprovement o national and international climatepolicy.

As seen in the EU-ocused map, climate change per-ormance varies widely across the continent. TheEuropean Union has some leading countries, namelySweden, Norway, Germany, France and UK. Here,perormance rankings are either increasing or re-maining the same, but are overall relatively good.However, within Europe, countries such as Poland,Italy and Turkey hold some o the lowest positions inthe overall ranking. This is partly due to their policyevaluations. Poland was, together with Italy, theleader o those EU states which blocked the 30 per-

cent reduction target (until 2020) in the EU. Polandwas also active in blocking EU climate unding deci-sions.

Perormance

Very good

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very poor

Not included in assessment

More than 10% o total emissionsrom land use changes. They are notincluded in the index calculations.


10/20

10

Map 2a

Map 2b

Germanwatch 2010

The emissions trend is an important indicator withinthe CCPI, as it composes 50 percent o the rankingsweight.

Thereore, i countries wish to improve their rank-ing, it is vital to lower their emissions trend; yet,while policy decisions largely contribute to thetrend, it takes time until they have an eect. Thiscan be seen through the examples o China andKorea. They are strongly improving their climate

policy; however, this is not mirrored in the emis-sions trend. Thereore, China has the highest emis-

sions trend by ar. It will be interesting to see trendresults or these countries in the coming years.

The best trends this year are in countries such asGermany, the UK and Ukraine, but even these coun-tries are not on track to prevent dangerous climatechange.

Conversely, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Iran have theworst emissions trends measured over the last fve

years.

4.1 Partial Results Emissions Trend


11/20

11

Germanwatch 2010

Perormance

Very good

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very poor



12/20

12

Germanwatch 2010

4.2 Partial Results Emissions Level

Regarding emissions levels, results are poor acrossthe board and by ar inadequate to meet the 2Climit set by the IPCC. Due to the negligible increas-es in energy efciency, primary energy use is stillincreasing, along with the reliance on coal. Globalemissions levels are too high to prevent dangerousclimate change.

The countries with the highest relative emissionslevels are Australia, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.Canada has also allen eight ranks with respect toemissions levels as a result o its high emissionstrend.

Map 3a

Map 3b


13/20

13

Germanwatch 2010

CCPI Rank2011 (2010)

Country Share oGlobal

CO2 Emissions*

Share o GlobalPrimary Energy

Supply

Share oGlobal GDP

Share oGlobal

Population

Germany 7 (7) 2.74 % 2.73 % 3.68 % 1.23 %

United Kingdom 8 (6) 1.74 % 1.70 % 2.88 % 0.92 %

India 10 (9) 4.86 % 5.06 % 6.75 % 17.05 %

Korea, Rep. 34 (41) 1.71 % 1.85 % 1.78 % 0.73 %

Japan 38 (35) 3.92 % 4.04 % 5.63 % 1.91 %

Russia 48 (45) 5.42 % 5.60 % 2.59 % 2.12 %

Iran 52 (38) 1.72 % 1.65 % 0.92 % 1.08 %

USA 54 (53) 19.05 % 18.62 % 18.39 % 4.55 %

China 56 (52) 22.29 % 17.37 % 17.31 % 19.93 %

Canada 57 (59) 1.88 % 2.17 % 1.64 % 0.50 %

Total 65.33 % 60.79 % 61.57 % 50.02 %

Germanwatch 2010*energy related

Table 3: Key Data or the 10 Largest CO2 Emitters

Perormance

Very good

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very poor

Not includedin assessment

More than 10% o totalemissions rom land usechanges. They are notincluded in the indexcalculations.


14/20

14

Germanwatch 2010

4.3 Partial Results Climate Policy

More than 190 NGO experts contributed to thepreparation o the index and rated their countriesnational and international climate policies. The re-sults are illustrated on map 4. Generally, the indexshows a shit in the rankings compared to last year:where national climate policy was poorer than in-ternational policy, national policy scores have nowwidely overtaken international scores ater a dis-couraging Copenhagen conerence.

For the frst time, the CCPI looks at the question ocountries perormance regarding climate inance,

specifcally concerning ast start fnance, a new ini-tiative within the Copenhagen Accord. This fnanceplan is designed or developed countries to providedeveloping countries with unding o almost USD

30 billion between 2010 and 2012. Its goal is to en-hance action on mitigation, adaptation and technol-ogy development, transer and capacity building.Providing additional unding will support develop-ing countries implementation o the Convention.It will also restore confdence in international ne-gotiations by proving that developed countries arewilling to ulil their commitments4. In order orthis unding to be eective, it is important that theamount is not only satisactory, but that it is alsonew and additional to original oicial develop-ment aid (ODA) and that it begins now. Until now,

there are no objective criteria deining new andadditional. Thereore, the expert evaluations areonly subjective until this is defned.

4 For urther inormation about ast start fnance seehttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/fnance_en.htm

Map 4a

Map 4b


15/20

15

Germanwatch 2010

Perormance

Very good

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very poor


Overall, the analysis o ast start fnance shows rela-tively poor grades. Experts criticize that countriesare not contributing enough money and the majorityo the contributions are not new and additional.Thereore, an improvement in ast start fnance isvital, since, as stated by Christiana Figueres, Exe-cutive Secretary o the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change, Fast start fnance is a centralkey to unlock the door to success in Cancn5.

An encouraging example o climate policy rankingsthis year is that o Korea. Through its recent con-centration on green growth and ambitious nationalemissions reduction targets, NGO experts awardedthe country with high national policy ratings, placingit in fth rank.

Germanys national policy, especially the recentrelease o its Energy Concept, has received pre-dominantly negative eedback rom NGO experts,

causing the country to drop fve ranks in the policyranking since last year. Despite the act that the con-cept aims to greatly reduce greenhouse gases and toincrease energy efciency and the share o renew-able energies, the lack o relevant policies to ul-fl these targets is noteworthy. Moreover, the con-cepts lietime extension o nuclear plants, whichprovides a strong disincentive or renewable energyinvestments and a subsidy or traditional energyutilities, has let policy experts dissatisfed.

The lowest rank in climate policy is held by SaudiArabia. Through its vast inancial resources andcapability or solar and hydrogen-based energy,it has the opportunity to be a large part o the solu-tion to climate change. However, as evident by itsextremely high emissions levels and trends and lack

o positive policy approaches, Saudi Arabia remainsa considerable part o the problem.

5 ibid.


16/20

16

The ollowing country comparison provides an exam-

ple o a dierentiated analysis o the 12 indicatorsused in the index.

The weighted sum o each countrys scores or the

separate indicators makes up the countrys over-all score, determining its position in the index.However, the ranking does not state how much andin which regard a countrys perormance diers romothers. To see how much the individual country re-sults dier, one must examine the scores o the vari-ous indicators. This years comparison o China andthe US provides a closer look at the worlds top twoemitters, both ranking among the indexs ten low-est countries. In comparison to last year, the twocountries have decreased their overall ranking, withChina dropping our ranks and the US dropping one.However, despite these similarities, both countries

rankings dier undamentally in some o the indica-tors.

The ollowing analysis looks at the background othese individual indicators:

With regard to the sub-indicators CO2 per primaryenergy unit and primary energy per gross domes-tic product (GDP) unit, China and the US both rankpoorly. One reason or this is their heavy reliance onossil uels. For CO2 per energy unit, Chinas poorranking o 55 is explained by its heavy coal depend-ence, only slightly exceeding that o the US, whichranked 41.

Another sub-indicator shows a major dierence.Chinas results are much better (rank 10) than the US(rank 57) regarding the primary energy use per cap-

ita. This contrast highlights the dierent actual andhistoric responsibilities o both countries, which isa common issue o contention during internationalnegotiations. China and other countries empha-size the necessity that nations with high per capita

emissions act frst. Moreover, or an industrializedcountry, the US has very inefcient energy use. Toincrease climate and energy security, it is an impera-tive to increase energy efciency.

Regarding emissions trends, the comparative scoresor sub-indicators vary greatly between the USA andChina, yet, in the end, they result in a similar overallranking. Chinas ranking is relatively lower than theUSs in terms o emissions trends o energy, trans-port, industrial and residential emissions; however,the US has poorer scores concerning its target per-ormance comparison. This means the gap between

the necessary climate policy and that which has beenimplemented is bigger in the US. The sector in whichChina ranks the worst is manuacturing and construc-tion, receiving the poorest ranking o all countries inthe index. On one hand, this is explained by Chinasrole as an export-based country, relying heavily onits production o the goods used by many othercountries, such as the US. On the other hand, Chinainvested heavily in inrastructure projects over thelast ew years, which are energy and CO2 intensive.

Concerning emissions trends in the road trafc sec-tor, the US moved up by two ranks compared to lastyear, placing the US as the 11th within the CCPI. Inthis regard, China again holds one o the worst rank-ings. During the analysed time rame (2003-2008),the US again has reduced its per capita emissions inthe electricity sector and has improved its relative

5. Country Comparison: USA and China

Table 4: USA

Germanwatch 2010*Minimum: 0, maximum: 100 ** (4 -6 0) None o the countries achieved positions one to three.

Indicator Score* Rank** Weight Rank**

Emissions Levels CO2 per Primary Energy Unit 28.6 41 15.0 %

Primary Energy per GDP Unit 75.4 43 7.5 % 54

Primary Energy per Capita 24.3 57 7.5 %

Sectoral Energy Electricity 80.2 18 8.0 %

Emissions Renewables 20.1 29 8.0 %

Trends Transport International Aviation 73.2 24 4.0 % 42

Road Traic 87.6 11 4.0 %

Residential Private Households 47.6 19 4.0 %

Industry Manuacturing and Construction 80.0 22 7.0 %

Target-Perormance Comparison since 1990 35.6 54 15.0 %

Climate Policies International 22.5 55 10.0 % 53

National 49.1 38 10.0 %

Total 46.5 100 % 54


17/20

17

score or renewable energy. However, there is stillmuch room or improvement.

The target-perormance comparison, a heavily-weighted indicator in the emissions trend category,

has had a strong impact on the overall rankings orthe US in comparison to China. In order to stay with-in the 2C limit, countries must lower their emissionsto 1.5 tons o CO2 per capita by 2050. However, boththe US and China are o track to meet this goal. Asthe required emissions trend trajectory or the USis extremely steep, it has to work harder than mostcountries to get on track. For the target-perormancecomparison, the US receives a ranking o 54, reect-ing its distance rom the necessary emissions trend.Similarly, although Chinas trajectory provides theavailability to urther increase GHG emissions, thecountry is also exceeding the emissions trend neces-

sary to prevent dangerous levels o climate change.As the gap between the necessary and real trajecto-ries is smaller in China than the same gap in the US,it receives a relative ranking o 25.

China and the US dier greatly in terms o nationalclimate policy. President Obama has improved cli-mate change policy in comparison to during theBush administration. However, the process to passa national climate change bill has collapsed, leavingthe EPA and the individual states to orm their owninitiatives. Nevertheless, the US climate and energyexperts that commented on the US noticed that,during the last twelve months, policies improvedin some felds. These policies include, or example,those which support alternative energy by meanso the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, orthose which increase residential energy efciency.

However, most policies are limited in value and lacklarger policy rameworks to ensure long-term eec-tiveness. Thereore, the US national climate policy isranked worse than last year with 38.

Contrastingly, China is now one o the leading coun-tries with respect to national policy. It received goodgrades rom resident NGO climate experts, resultingin a high relative ranking o 4. Chinas encouragingpolicies include a national, binding energy intensityreduction target, stricter uel efciency standardsand extremely supportive policies or renewableenergy development. I these encouraging nationalpolicies are successul and will be urther strength-ened through the decision on the next fve-year planin March 2011, Chinas rank within the CCPI will beimproved in the uture.

In terms o international climate policy, during theCopenhagen conerence, both the US and China cre-ated large obstacles to agreement on a global emis-sions reduction target. While the US wasnt able tolead without backing rom Congress, China was un-willing to take the irst step without the US. Thisended not only in discouragement in internationalpolicymaking, but also in the lack o a binding agree-ment. On account o the split in Congress ater themid-term elections, it is clear that the US will not rat-iy a legally binding agreement in the next years. Asa result, the international policy ranking or the US is55, the same rank as last year. Alternatively, China,which ranked 11, placed much better than the US,but worse than last year. Overall, experts agree thatChina, together with the European Union, shouldand can take the lead in international negotiations.

Germanwatch 2010*Minimum: 0, maximum: 100 ** (4 -6 0) None o the countries achieved positions one to three.

Indicator Score* Rank** Weight Rank**

Emissions Levels CO2 per Primary Energy Unit 7.2 55 15.0 %

Primary Energy per GDP Unit 75.5 42 7.5 % 48

Primary Energy per Capita 89.0 10 7.5 %

Sectoral Energy Electricity 10.4 59 8.0 %

Emissions Renewables 11.5 42 8.0 %

Trends Transport International Aviation 43.5 51 4.0 % 60

Road Traic 2.5 59 4.0 %

Residential Private Households 20.0 51 4.0 %

Industry Manuacturing and Construction 0.0 60 7.0 %

Target-Perormance Comparison since 1990 65.5 25 15.0 %

Climate Policies International 72.7 11 10.0 % 6

National 100.0 4 10.0 %

Total 44.9 100 % 56

Table 5: China


18/20

18

The ollowing tables show countries categorised bygroups which enables a comparison o emitters withmore or less similar basic conditions.

6. Climate Change Performance Index by Country Group

Germanwatch 2010

Rank Country Score

5 Sweden 69.88

6 Norway 67.017 Germany 66.988 United Kingdom 65.929 France 64.6411 Mexico 63.9513 Switzerland 63.63

14 Portugal 63.38

16 Hungary 61.79

17 Belgium 61.49

Germanwatch 2010

Germanwatch 2010

Rank Country Score

5 Sweden 69.88

7 Germany 66.988 United Kingdom 65.929 France 64.64

12 Malta 63.7914 Portugal 63.38

15 Latvia 61.9416 Hungary 61.7917 Belgium 61.49

Rank Country Score

18 Slovak Republic 60.48

20 Ireland 59.7822 Lithuania 59.4727 Czech Republic 57.4828 Romania 56.98

30 Netherlands 56.43

31 Finland 55.1133 Denmark 54.6435 Spain 54.41

Rank Country Score

39 Cyprus 53.0040 Austria 52.86

41 Italy 52.7042 Estonia 52.6843 Greece 52.4345 Slovenia 51.41

49 Bulgaria 49.6051 Luxembourg 48.2555 Poland 46.33

Rank Country Score

15 Latvia 61.94

16 Hungary 61.7918 Slovak Republic 60.48

22 Lithuania 59.4725 Belarus 57.55

Rank Country Score

27 Czech Republic 57.48

28 Romania 56.9836 Ukraine 54.10

42 Estonia 52.6845 Slovenia 51.41

Rank Country Score

46 Croatia 50.1948 Russia 49.8349 Bulgaria 49.60

55 Poland 46.3359 Kazakhstan 42.48

Rank Country Score

18 Slovak Republic 60.48

20 Ireland 59.7824 Iceland 58.7327 Czech Republic 57.4830 Netherlands 56.4331 Finland 55.1133 Denmark 54.64

34 Korea, Rep. 54.54

35 Spain 54.41

37 New Zealand 53.73

Rank Country Score

38 Japan 53.09

40 Austria 52.8641 Italy 52.7043 Greece 52.4350 Turkey 49.0251 Luxembourg 48.2554 USA 46.4955 Poland 46.3357 Canada 43.8658 Australia 42.86

Table 6: Climate Change Perormance Index or OECD Member Countries

Table 7: Climate Change Perormance Index or EU Member Countries

Table 8: Climate Change Perormance Index or Countries in Transition


19/20

19

BMU (2009): Renewable energy sources in fgures national and international development.www.bmu.de/english/renewable_energy/downloads/doc/5996.php

Energy Inormation Administration (2010): International Energy Outlook 2010.www.eia.doe.gov/oia/ieo/pd/0484%282010%29.pd

European Commission (2010): Climate Finance. European Commission Climate Action,http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/fnance_en.htm.

Freudenberg (2003): Composite Indicators o Country Perormance: A Critical Assessment. STI WorkingPaper 2003/16. Paris.

IEA (2010a): CO2 Emissions rom Fuel Combustion. Paris. IEA (2010b): Renewables Inormation. Paris.

IPCC (1997): Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines or National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html

Hhne; Phylipsen; Ullrich; Blok (2005): Options or the second commitment period o the Kyoto Protocol.Climate Change. Nr. 02/2005. Umweltbundesamt. www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/pd-l/2847.pd

Meinshausen (2005): On the risk o Overshooting 2 C. Paper presented at Scientifc Symposium AvoidingDangerous Climate Change, MetOfce, Exeter, 1-3 February 2005. www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/sim-cap/publications/meinshausenm_risk_o_overshooting_fnal_webversion.pd

Meinshausen, M. et al. (2009). Greenhouse-gas emission targets or limiting global warming to 2C. Nature458(7242): 1158.

Phillips (2009). Economic crisis producing huge drop in EU CO2 emissions. EUobserver. 3 April 2009.http://euobserver.com/885/27913.

WBGU (2003): Climate Protection Strategies or the 21st Century. Kyoto and Beyond. Special Report. Berlin.www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2003_engl.html

7. Sources

Germanwatch 2010

Rank Country Score

4 Brazil 70.4510 India 64.1111 Mexico 63.9519 Thailand 59.83

21 Indonesia 59.73

Rank Country Score

23 Morocco 59.4226 Algeria 57.4929 South Arica 56.6032 Singapore 54.97

44 Argentina 52.38

Rank Country Score

47 Chinese Taipei 50.1550 Turkey 49.0253 Malaysia 47.10

56 China 44.90

Table 9: Climate Change Perormance Index or Newly Industrialised Countries

Germanwatch 2010

Rank Country Score

10 India 64.11

19 Thailand 59.83

21 Indonesia 59.73

Rank Country Score

32 Singapore 54.9734 Korea, Rep. 54.5438 Japan 53.09

Rank Country Score

47 Chinese Taipei 50.15

53 Malaysia 47.10

56 China 44.90

Table 10: Climate Change Perormance Index or ASEAN Member Countries plus India, China,Japan and Korean Republic


20/20

climate change performance index 2011

Documents