Only 13 countries have submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by the deadline of February 10 this year. The irresponsibility toward the planet is illustrated by the fact that the countries that missed this deadline account for 83% of global emissions and 80% of the global economy.

What Do They Contribute?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that last year, the United States experienced 27 climate-related natural disasters, each costing taxpayers over one billion dollars. These included droughts, floods, cyclones, other storms, wildfires, etc. Furthermore, they resulted in the deaths of 568 people. The annual average for the period 1980-2024 is 9 such events, while the average for the last five years (2020–2024) is an astounding 23!

This is just one example of how climate change impacts the everyday lives of ordinary people, even in a developed country with adaptation mechanisms in place. Such destructive consequences were highlighted at the 2015 climate conference when the Paris Agreement was introduced and ratified by most countries worldwide. As seen in the example above, the obligation to comply with the Paris Agreement is not merely an administrative process, but a matter of morality, ethics, and empathy. However, to ensure that promises are not just empty words, a framework for monitoring and enforcement is necessary. This is where Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) come into play – official documents outlining how signatory countries plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C.

NDCs are tailored to national priorities and capacities, but are also part of an international accountability mechanism for the planet. Countries are required to report on their progress and periodically (every five years) propose enhanced targets. For these plans to be as effective as possible, there is an emphasis on sectoral division, where key areas include renewable energy, extractive and manufacturing industries, transportation, and land use. Within these sectors, NDCs include strategies for natural resource conservation, energy efficiency, climate risk resilience, and more. If we return to the aforementioned postulates of morality, ethics, and empathy, these contributions should not be limited to formal listings of promises and intentions but should lay the foundation for a long-term transformation toward a sustainable and climate-responsible economy.

Sweet Dreams or Bitter Reality?

The core issue with NDCs lies in their ambiguity and, unfortunately, their non-binding nature. While countries are obligated under the Paris Agreement to submit their contributions, there are no sanctions for failing to fulfill what is outlined in them. Moreover, many plans are drafted in a way that does not guarantee actual emission reductions, but rather rely on unrealistic projections of economic growth or the availability of international funds. This often means that stated ambitions can only be achieved with external financial and technological support. Considering the growing populism and volatility of global leaders, this arrangement remains uncertain. Lastly, even if there are no financing barriers, NDCs are not ambitious enough. According to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), projections for emissions by 2030, based on existing contributions, vary between 47 and 63 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent annually, which is still, on average, above the emissions from 2010, when they amounted to about 51 billion tons. To meet the 1.5°C target, emissions should fall to 25–30 billion tons by 2030. The broad range of projections stems from inconsistent methodologies, imprecise goals, and uncertain financing, making NDC documents, in many cases, more of a formal compliance exercise than actual tools for change.

Drill, Baby, Drill

Global upheavals in recent years have led many developed countries to delay or scale back their commitments to combating climate change.

The European Union, faced with an energy crisis and a situation where others are shaping its geopolitical destiny, introduced the "Clean Industrial Deal" as part of efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. This plan includes facilitating state aid for green projects, reducing energy costs for industry, and revising trade policies to protect domestic production. The narrative of competitiveness and a political agenda focused on increasing production by reducing regulatory burdens is a recipe that, historically, protects corporate interests. Major polluters, perhaps in an ideal world, should not be the architects of a new green deal, but they certainly want to be, as shown by the Antwerp Declaration. In this chaos, the EU "forgot" to submit its NDC in February and extended its deadline until September.

On the other side of the Atlantic, newly elected President Donald Trump signed an order pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement for the second time, stating that the agreement unfairly burdens the U.S. economy. Climate skeptics in the new president's cabinet are lobbying for the U.S. to withdraw from the UNFCCC. Losing the wealthiest country in the world from the active fight against climate change would significantly reduce ambitions regarding climate reparations and the energy transition. If we recall last year’s “financial” United Nations Climate Change Summit (COP29), it was supposed to show more significant efforts from developed nations in financing climate change mitigation and adaptation. The final promise of aid was even four times smaller than what developing countries requested, amounting to only $300 million compared to the $1.3 billion needed. The U.S. did submit its NDC on time, but that was during the previous administration, which casts doubt on the NDC and its transformation into practice.

Another example of reduced climate ambitions can remind us of the bureaucratic behavior of governments in response to the cries of the people. Japan, through its energy strategy and NDC, set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2035 compared to 2013 levels. A slight increase compared to previous goals was condemned by the public. During the public debate, over 80% of comments called for more ambitious targets, but the government decided to keep the original plan. To add insult to injury, the construction of a liquefied natural gas plant in Alaska, which would supply fossil fuel to the Land of the Rising Sun, is expected to begin, with a project worth as much as $44 billion.

Better Off Alone Than in Bad Company

Such moves by large economies create uncertainty and make it harder for smaller countries to define their climate policies. Serbia revised its NDC in 2022, two years late, and like most countries, failed to meet the February deadline this year for updating its contributions. It committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 13.2% compared to 2010 levels, or 33.3% compared to 1990 levels, by 2030. The NDC was adopted supported by various strategic documents, such as the Climate Change Law and the Low-Carbon Development Strategy. In the meantime, Serbia adopted the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (INECP), but it lacks ambitious steps toward decarbonization, the 2023-2030 Climate Adaptation Program is insufficient, and no action plan for the Low-Carbon Development Strategy has been proposed, leaving its implementation in a gray zone. Such a cacophony of documents does not bode well for the long-term strategy that could be seen in a future, revised NDC.

When facing climate change, the most important shift is a change in perspective. Much depends on major emitters, but when small countries unite, they can make a significant impact. Why, for example, shouldn't our region, which struggles with air pollution and the consequences of climate change, become a symbol of awakened awareness? Montenegro has already taken the first step by setting an ambitious target to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030 and 60% by 2035, a huge leap from the previous NDC, which aimed for only 35%. We could "dance" together with our neighbors. Serbia still relies on coal-fired power plants, while renewable energy sources are developing slowly and often without a long-term strategy. In its revised NDC, Serbia could set binding targets for the share of solar and wind energy, electrification of urban transportation, and improvements in energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings. Through the establishment of a Just Transition Fund and the inclusion of local communities in planning processes, Serbia could reduce resistance to the coal transition and provide economic sustainability to vulnerable sectors of society.

In addition to reducing emissions, it is essential to protect natural areas that can help mitigate climate change. Serbia could, in its new NDC, insist on increasing forested areas, preserving wetland habitats, and establishing additional protected zones that will contribute to long-term biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, extreme weather events like floods and droughts have become more frequent, so the revised NDC could focus on developing resilience to these issues. This would include improving early warning systems, modernizing flood protection infrastructure, and optimizing water resource management. Or, for example, joint initiatives in regional river management and agricultural system protection, rather than land resale and mining projects with devastating environmental impacts.

Written this way, all of this may seem completely unrealistic to the reader, doesn't it? Perhaps, but we must remember that, just four months ago, we didn’t know that young people in Serbia were capable of developing innovative ideas for democratic organization, that defiance could stand up to aggression, and that the energy of defeatism could be transformed into the energy of change. Therefore, let’s contribute.

Author: Marko Pajović, BOS