• Use political tools to set emissions targets (e.g., 80% reduction by 2050);
• Invest heavily in green technology to drive green energy prices lower.  Only then will these technologies take hold. Carbon reductions are an important byproduct but not the main goal.

Of course these are not mutually exclusive, but they might as well be given the way they have played out on the political stage.

With a lot of people down on political solutions to deal with climate change, strong advocates of the latter approach may now gain the upper hand.  Folks like Shellenberger and Nordhaus have been arguing that green energy needs to be produced as quickly and cheaply as possible—forget all of the games with cap and trade or carbon taxes.   Tom Friedman has also argued the need for swift action on energy, while also endorsing political solutions like carbon taxes.

If you look for areas that are gaining or have the potential to gain traction, there seem to be two levers that may work:

• the link between fossil fuel dependency, climate change, economic stability, and national security;
• the fact that China is eating our lunch with respect to clean energy development.

Both of these general concerns have attracted Republican support for green energy and climate change mitigation, including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

This may be a signal of potential game changers and the clearest path forward that we’ve seen in awhile.

_____

Photo credit:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Food for thought—today’s latest on what happened at Copenhagen, what it might mean, and where we go from here:

1. SLATE:  The Party’s Over Why Copenhagen was the climate conference to end all climate conferences.

2. NY TIMES:

• Copenhagen, and Beyond
• Off to the Races

3. TREEHUGGER:

• The Copenhagen Accord: A Beginning
• What’s Missing in the Copenhagen Accord?
• Why is Everyone so Pissed at Obama?

4. GRIST:

• Copenhagen: a look back at the most striking narratives
• All over the map: Rounding up editorial reax to Copenhagen
• Letter to Bill McKibben: don’t blame Obama for Copenhagen
• A preliminary assessment of the Copenhagen Accord
• What’s missing in the Copenhagen accord?

5. WSJ: Climate Chaos: Is There a Silver Lining to the Copenhagen Fiasco?

6. PIELKE, JR: Post-Copenhagen: More questions than answers

7. BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE: BBC World Service: Who is to Blame at Copenhagen?

8. MONBIOT (GUARDIAN): If you want to know who’s to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate

9. NISBET: Schwarzenegger Says It’s Time to Regionalize the Climate Change Debate

10. MCKIBBEN:

• Copenhagen: Things Fall Apart
• An unwelcome lesson in power politics

11. ROMM (CLIMATE PROGRESS)

• post 1
• post 2

12. MOTHER JONES: Obama’s Copenhagen Deal

13. THE VINE (NEW REPUBLIC):

• Was Copenhagen A Disaster Or Decent First Step?
• Did Obama Really Sidestep The U.N. At Copenhagen?

_____

Photo credit:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/miltoncorrea/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

(1) Climate of Compromise

• News stories are already talking about the ‘failure’ of Copenhagen and squandered opportunities. But viewed from the perspective of just a few years ago, the Copenhagen summit could already be considered a partial success. In a short span, many nations have pledged to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by considerable amounts, well beyond any commitments they had made before, such as through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
• Nevertheless, such vows fall short of what is needed to protect against the dangers of global warming. Nations need to reduce global emissions far more in the longer term, and the endgame gets much tougher if leaders delay making those reductions.
• The negotiating impasse can be breached only by concessions on both sides. Developed nations, particularly the United States, must agree to substantial reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, both in the next decade and in the long term. And developing nations must commit to controlling their greenhouse-gas pollution in some fashion.
• In the end, successful international negotiations share some important characteristics with scientific research. Both are iterative processes, in which results from one step help to determine the path forward. They require time and perseverance. And they rarely travel in a straight line. Countries should endeavour to build on the positive actions of the past year, both before and after the Copenhagen summit.

(2) Time running out for climate talks

• Some argue for building a consensus around areas of agreement and holding off on contentious issues involving money or specific commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Others focus on the architecture of a treaty and a broad, if symbolic, agreement among global leaders.  Some have suggested simply ‘stopping the clock’ on negotiations for a few months. Such proposals are intended to build political confidence and maintain momentum while allowing the United States more time to work out its domestic policy. Although the House
  of Representatives has passed climate legislation that would curb emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% below by 2050, Senate Democrats are running out of time to pass a companion bill before Copenhagen. With the United States in limbo, the Europeans
  are necessarily leading the talks for the developed world.
• India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, says the negotiations are unlikely to go anywhere unless wealthy nations embrace more ambitious emissions reductions and promise more money to help developing countries cope with climate change.
• China, the world’s largest emitter, is moving forwards with aggressive energy-efficiency targets and renewable-energy mandates — but has yet to pledge binding commitments or agree a date to level off its explosive emissions growth.

(3) India pushes for common responsibility

• India expects a strong agreement at December’s United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen for several reasons. First, the country is very vulnerable to the effects of climate change, both those projected to occur within its own territory and those in neighbouring countries.
• Second, India is not solely interested in seeing global emissions adequately reduced as soon as possible. The country also has a direct interest in adaptation measures for coping with projected climate change, which is now inevitable because of the existing inertia in the climate system.
• As a matter of principle, India will firmly dismiss demands from developed nations that their proposed emissions cuts should, in any way, be contingent on rapidly developing economies, such as India and China, committing themselves to emissions limits before 2020. But to demonstrate the country’s seriousness towards shared action, India has a domestic programme — the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) — that it could, at an appropriate stage of the negotiations, offer as part of a global package of commitments.

(4) China expects leadership from rich nations

• The Chinese perspective is that reaching a deal will depend largely on decisive mitigation action being taken by the developed nations. The developing nations will have every reason to follow suit if the rich nations demonstrate leadership and commit to more substantial cuts than they have offered so far.
• All nations require adaptation, but developed countries have adaptive capacity whereas the developing ones do not. Financial resources are thus required to help the poorer countries to adapt.
• So far, little external funding has been forthcoming. Some development assistance will be provided by rich nations, but this is far less than what is needed. The uncertainty over financing is a major barrier to a global climate deal.
• To achieve a solution, developed countries must show leadership in Copenhagen. They should promise cuts equal to, or deeper than, 40% for 2020. If the Annex I parties are unwilling or unable to do this, the rest of the world would be discouraged from taking serious action. A more likely outcome in Copenhagen would be a statement that the world intends to limit global warming to 2 °C by 2050. Emission reductions and mitigation actions for individual parties will have to be specified later.