Abstract
NDCs submitted by State Parties under the PA genuinely do not represent commitments and intentions from the author State to be legally bound by the pledges they’ve communicated within their submitted NDCs. While NDCs reflect the political will and aspirations of nations, tied to their socio-economic realities, they lack concrete, enforceable domestic mitigation standards. This dilemma poses pressing questions: If NDCs are primarily political declarations and domestic courts don’t hold states accountable for their submitted mitigation targets, how can we ensure states fulfill their pledges for mitigation? Can NDCs genuinely drive state behavioral change for energy transition? Furthermore, there is a double-edged challenge: (1) NDCs often lack ambition, and (2) nations frequently fail to meet modest targets, exacerbated by vague NDCs. As they presently stand, submitted NDCs are woefully inadequate to drive the transformative energy transitions required to meet the ambitious goals set forth in the PA. Comparing NDCs to a charitable fundraising effort, where everyone pledges what they can afford, raises a valid question: Why should we expect these promises to add up to the necessary level of action? With the current NDC mechanisms, all we can do is hope that when countries observe each other’s efforts and recognize how far we are from our target, they will step up their efforts next time. To address these limitations, leveraging global climate governance and negotiations is essential. Vulnerable nations can pressure major economies for compliance. Strengthening NDC governance through transparency, robust stocktaking, and stringent reporting obligations, supported by expert-based reviews, can enhance compliance efforts. Creating urgency and ambition can be achieved through rigorous stocktaking and emission reduction report cards. Fostering coordination and understanding among nations, especially major emitters, is crucial. Governments should include explanations with their NDC submissions to enhance mutual understanding and transparency. In conclusion, NDCs face hurdles in driving meaningful energy transition. The NDC process may require revisions, including specific features, expert feasibility checks upon submission, and improved monitoring and reporting standards. These were rejected in 2015, but eight years have shown that the current system falls short.