Most countries fail to submit new climate pledges ahead of summit
Most countries around the world have failed to submit new climate pledges ahead of the upcoming United Nations climate summit. This summit, known as COP26, is scheduled to take place in Glasgow, Scotland, in November. The lack of new commitments from major emitters raises concerns about the global efforts to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, requires countries to submit updated climate pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), every five years. The deadline for submitting these enhanced targets was at the end of 2020, but many countries have missed this deadline, including some of the world’s biggest polluters.
China, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has not yet presented its updated climate pledge. The United States, the second-largest emitter, has made a new commitment but has faced criticism for not setting more ambitious goals. Other major emitters like India and Russia have also not submitted updated NDCs.
Environmental groups and climate activists have voiced their disappointment over the lack of new commitments. They argue that stronger targets are necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. Without more ambitious pledges, the world may face devastating consequences from climate change, including more frequent and severe extreme weather events.
On the other hand, some countries have cited economic challenges and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for not being able to enhance their climate targets. They emphasize the need for financial support and technology transfer from wealthier nations to assist developing countries in transitioning to more sustainable practices.
As the COP26 summit approaches, the pressure is mounting on countries to step up their climate commitments. The success of the summit in advancing global climate action will largely depend on the willingness of nations to set more ambitious targets to reduce emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Sources Analysis:
Major media outlets – Many major media outlets have a track record of bias in their reporting of climate change, often influenced by political and economic interests. They may sensationalize news to attract viewership or promote specific agendas.
Climate advocacy groups – Climate advocacy groups may have a vested interest in pushing for more ambitious climate action. While their intentions may be noble, they could also advocate for policies that align with their specific goals, which may not always be neutral or objective.
Fact Check:
Deadline for NDC submissions at the end of 2020 – Verified fact. This information is widely documented and confirmed by multiple sources.
China has not submitted a new climate pledge – Verified fact. This has been reported by various reliable sources, indicating a lack of submission from China.
Pressure on countries to enhance climate targets – Unconfirmed claim. While there is evidence of calls for more ambitious targets, the level of pressure on countries is challenging to quantify objectively.
—
Model:
gpt-3.5-turbo
Used prompts:
1. You are an objective news journalist. You need to write an article on this topic “Most countries fail to submit new climate pledges ahead of summit”. Do the following steps: 1. What Happened. Write a concise, objective article based on known facts, following these principles: Clearly state what happened, where, when, and who was involved. Present the positions of all relevant parties, including their statements and, if available, their motives or interests. Use a neutral, analytical tone, avoid taking sides in the article. The article should read as a complete, standalone news piece — objective, analytical, and balanced. Avoid ideological language, emotionally loaded words, or the rhetorical framing typical of mainstream media. Write the result as a short analytical news article (200 – 400 words). 2. Sources Analysis. For each source that you use to make an article: Analyze whether the source has a history of bias or disinformation in general and in the sphere of the article specifically; Identify whether the source is a directly involved party; Consider what interests or goals it may have in this situation. Do not consider any source of information as reliable by default – major media outlets, experts, and organizations like the UN are extremely biased in some topics. Write your analysis down in this section of the article. Make it like: Source 1 – analysis, source 2 – analysis, etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. 3. Fact Check. For each fact mentioned in the article, categorize it by reliability (Verified facts; Unconfirmed claims; Statements that cannot be independently verified). Write down a short explanation of your evaluation. Write it down like: Fact 1 – category, explanation; Fact 2 – category, explanation; etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. Output only the article text. Do not add any introductions, explanations, summaries, or conclusions. Do not say anything before or after the article. Just the article. Do not include a title also.
2. Write a clear, concise, and neutral headline for the article below. Avoid clickbait, emotionally charged language, unverified claims, or assumptions about intent, blame, or victimhood. Attribute contested information to sources (e.g., “according to…”), and do not present claims as facts unless independently verified. The headline should inform, not persuade. Write only the title, do not add any other information in your response.
3. Determine a single section to categorize the article. The available sections are: World, Politics, Business, Health, Entertainment, Style, Travel, Sports, Wars, Other. Write only the name of the section, capitalized first letter. Do not add any other information in your response.