A tale of two reports

The Ministry of Environmental Protection today published a new report, as required under the UN Climate Convention, on the country’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reading the government’s report evokes the opening line of Charles Dickens’ novel A Tale of Two Cities — “It was the best of times…..”

However, graduate students in the climate studies program at Tel Aviv University simultaneously published an alternative report for Earth Day this week which evokes instead the continuation of that famous opening: “It was the worst of times.”

How can such dramatically different conclusions be explained? Is this just a classic case of “glass half full versus glass half empty” opposite perspectives? Or is it a matter of bias and selective reporting by the Ministry of Environmental Protection?

Full disclosure: I teach those students and supervised them during the writing of their independent and scholarly report. But even from an objective perspective, it seems there is a certain distortion of facts— whitewashing the reality that Israel has become a “climate laggard” in the international arena. Aside from a brief period when Minister Yuval Steinitz acted energetically to shut down coal-fired power plants, the Israeli government continues to treat the climate crisis as someone else’s problem, with performance that pales in comparison to the efforts of countries truly committed to the planet and future generations.

In practice, around 90% of Israel’s greenhouse gas emissions come from four sectors: electricity/energy, transportation, waste, and industry. Both reports rightly focus on these sectors. (It’s worth noting that if emissions from food — including imported meat — were counted, they too would make a significant contribution.)

So, what can be learned from comparing the two reports?

Let’s start with the targets Israel committed to under the Climate Convention in 2021. That same year, global scientists emphasized the importance of a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 to save the planet from climate chaos. Choosing 2015 as the baseline year for measuring progress is very convenient for Israel, since it includes reductions that occurred following the closure of coal plants.

Indeed, a 4.5% reduction in total emissions has occurred since then. But this still leaves us far from the goal promised to the international community — a 27% reduction by 2030. It is true that emissions have not risen — but we are supposed to cut them in half by 2030. Had Israel used the year 2000 as its baseline — as many countries did — we would actually see a 15% increase in emissions. In any case, in recent years, Israel actually has no meaningful progress to report.

The government report boasts mitigation achievements in electricity generation. And it is true that emissions from this sector dropped by 9.5% compared to 2015, thanks in part to a 10.4% (up to 2022 – 14% as of 2025) contribution from renewable energy to electricity consumption. And yes, a decrease was also recorded in per capita and GDP-related emissions.

But the students point out that four years ago, Israel made a much more significant international commitment: by 2030, 30% of local electricity is supposed to come from renewable sources. There is little chance of meeting that target within the next five years. Representatives from the Finance Ministry have even openly scoffed at Israel’s ability to coming near this target. Their cynicism is especially troubling considering the renewable share in the energy mix of countries like Kenya (92%), Denmark (82%), and even Spain (56%). The students identify key obstacles: bureaucratic delays, underdeveloped grid infrastructure, and over-reliance on solar energy.

It should be noted that the government has insouciantly postponed the planned coal phaseout until 2026. But let’s be honest — after the way the 2025 deadline came and went –  that promise is hard to take seriously.

In the transportation sector, the government report attempts to highlight an “encouraging” trend — the rise in electric bus purchases (17.7% in 2022 compared to 1.1% in 2021) and a 12.1% drop in emissions from new cars compared to 2015. Yet the same report admits a 9.4% overall increase in transportation emissions since 2015, due to a 3.1% increase in per capita travel distance.

The Tel Aviv University report explains that the poor performance in transportation stems, in part, from the embarrassingly weak targets Israel set for itself. The country’s international commitment actually allows for a 3.3% increase in emissions by 2030 — effectively a “business-as-usual” scenario. A meaningful reduction (96% by 2050) is deferred. The message is clear: let future generations deal with it.

Moreover, there are no interim goals to help guide transportation emission reductions. A 2015 commitment made to the UN to promote public transportation was erased. The student report emphasizes that most of the existing efforts are focused on major cities, neglecting small towns and rural areas. Without regional planning, reliance on private vehicles will persist — and even grow. Part of the problem is the tendency of the government to adopt excessively optimistic assumptions. For instance, Transport officials project 6 million vehicles operating in Israel by 2050. But projections from independent experts from academia say the number is actually 10 million.

At the end of the day, it’s disingenuous to boast about a high share of electric vehicles when the state has simultaneously raised the purchase tax on them from 10% in 2022 to 45% in 2025. In Norway, by contrast, 96% of vehicles sold today are electric. This is not by accident, but the result of deliberate and consistent public policy and incentives.

The students also rightly point out that shifting to electric vehicles in Israel could simply shift emissions from the transport sector to the electricity sector, unless emissions from power plants are reduced and renewable energy adoption accelerates. To neutralize the climate impact of switching to EVs, more than 99% of electricity production must come from renewables — while Israel struggles to reach even 20% by 2030.

And what about the waste sector — for which Israel promised that 2030 emissions would be reduced by 47%?  This is an area clearly under the authority of the Environmental Protection Ministry (rather than Energy or Transportation)? The government report quietly admits that greenhouse gas emissions from waste have risen by 9.3% since 2015, and the country’s recycling rate is stuck at 24%. By comparison, Germany reaches a 69% recycling rate, and most European countries exceed 50%.

In the industrial sector too, where a 30% emissions reduction was promiesd — no reductions were recorded. The government report acknowledges a 14.9% increase in emissions since 2015, with only limited progress in reducing use of oil and imported HFCs — calling it a clear sign of the need for much stronger action.

It is unpleasant to see a government misrepresenting facts to the international community. The report predicts that within the next five years, Israel will manage a 30% reduction in emissions from electricity. Yet in discussions at the Knesset’s Internal Affairs Committee, Finance Ministry officials openly mocked our ability to attain those targets and supported reducing ambitions rather than committing to significant efforts. When a country effectively gives up on improving transportation performance, it’s hardly appropriate for the Environmental Protection Ministry to parade empty targets.

Climate change isn’t waiting for more promises; 13,000 households in Los Angeles are now homeless from January’s devastating wildfires. They experienced firsthand the meaning of “extreme weather events” and a new climate reality.

Israel has shown in the past — in areas like water management and afforestation — that it can be a leader. When it comes to climate, though, for some reason, we’ve chosen a path of least resistance. From the students’ report, the truth emerges: the world is burning — and the government doesn’t seem to care.