In the run-up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, the nations submitted their INDCs, their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC). It was just “straw polling” of emission reduction targets, a chance for the UNFCCC to see how seriously the governments were taking this new bottom-up approach of acting individually but collectively. Once the Paris Agreement was adopted, these reduction targets became NDCs, Nationally Determined Contributions. Here’s how the UNFCCC explains the process:
The Paris Agreement recognizes that the long-term goals specified in its Articles 2 and 4.1 will be achieved through time and, therefore, builds on a ratcheting up of aggregate and individual ambition over time.
NDCs are submitted every five years to the UNFCCC secretariat. In order to enhance the ambition over time the Paris Agreement provide that successive NDCs will represent a progression compared to the previous NDC and reflect its highest possible ambition.
Parties are requested to submit the next round of NDCs (new NDCs or updated NDCs) by 2020 and every five years thereafter (e.g. by 2020, 2025, 2030), regardless of their respective implementation time frames.
Moreover, Parties may at any time adjust their existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition (Article 4, paragraph 11).
I’m the one who highlighted the year 2025, because—hello!—that’s this year, at COP30 in Belém, Brazil next month. The nations were supposed to submit their new, more ambitious NDCs by February, but to date only 56 nations have done so. This is according to the NDC Tracker at www.climatewatchdata.org. The 141 countries with no new NDCs represent 70% of annual global emissions. Surprisingly, the United States is one of the few countries that submitted new NDCs, and they did so before February. But I hate to break it to you: it was the Biden administration who submitted the NDCs while they could still do so before Trump’s inauguration.
I understand the UNFCCC language around NDCs, language of “ratcheting up” and “ambition.” Ratcheting up sounds mechanistic, but the Paris Agreement and the Rulebook are mechanisms—the nations are supposed to work the system. Ambition sounds capitalistic, but diplomats and the development community have a vision for progress. Nonetheless, I find myself missing the “I” in INDCs, the language of “Intentions.” I miss the chance to ask out loud: “What exactly are your intentions for this planet?” And I miss the spiritual and loving overtones of a word like “intentions.”
The first time I ever encountered the religious usage of “intention” was when I went on a Catholic retreat. Before “entering” the retreat, we were asked to reflect on “What is your intention for the retreat?” The Catholic Dictionary defines intention as “An act of the will tending effectively to some good, proposed by the mind as desirable and attainable. It differs from simply willing, which is the desire for an end without concern about the means. Intention means desiring not only some good but also the means of obtaining this good.” There is even a differentiation between intentions which are actual, virtual, habitual, or interpretative, but I’ll leave that to your own investigations. I always thought that the phrase “godly ambition” is found in Scripture, but I can’t locate it. More often, as in James 3:14-16, we are warned against our propensity for “selfish ambition.”
I’ve also been thinking about the use of the word “intention” when it comes to a common scenario, but one that may now be a bit old-fashioned. My oldest daughter is engaged to be married to a wonderful man. As the father, there was of course the moment I met my future son-in-law for the first time as they started dating. He also showed me the kindness of asking for my blessing before proposing to her. While I never felt the need to utter these words, the scene does appear in many novels and movies: The father turns to the suitor and asks sternly, “Young man, what are your intentions toward my daughter?” The first step toward a happy ending is the response, “Sir, my intentions are purely honourable.”
Leaders of the world, parties to the Paris Agreement: “What are your intentions toward God’s lovely, lovely daughter?”
COP30 is the 30th in a series of negotiations around implementing effective action. Since ambition seems to be lagging, COP30 needs to be a “retreat,” a soul-searching, a chance to listen to the cries of the poor and the voice of God. Since ratcheting-up seems to have grown rusty, COP30 needs to be an act of love, a renewal of our wedding vows to each other and to God’s creation. I like the word intentions.
And when intentions of the actors at COP30 seem to become the opposite of “desiring not only some good but also the means of obtaining this good,” then people-of-faith look to God for his goodness to sustain us. My favourite verses about not only God’s intentions toward us, but also about the ambitious ratcheting-up of those intentions toward us is from Paul’s prayer at the end of Ephesians chapter 3. He prays that we will “be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner self” (v. 16). We’ll need that strength at COP30,
so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to all the fullness of God.
Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.
There is a width, length, height, and depth to God’s love. (That’s one more dimension than physicists allow—though maybe one of those dimensions could be time.) Regardless, the love of God is going to surpass our knowledge of it. But here’s how I conceptualize the ambition of Paul’s finally doxology:
- God is able.
- God is able to do.
- God is able to do what we ask.
- God is able to do what we ask or think.
- God is able to do all that we ask or think.
- God is able to do beyond all that we ask or think.
- God is able to do abundantly beyond all that we ask or think.
- God is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think.
You are very dear to God,
Lowell Bliss
On behalf of the Climate Intercessors Leadership Team
