The Energy Grid

A meaningful schedule will be extraordinarily difficult to extract from the parties to the conference. And that may prove the understatement of the century. So far, all the world can agree on is the need to keep global average temperatures from rising more than 2 °C above pre-industrial averages. For one thing, we've already seen the thermometers rise by 0.8 °C, with another 0.5 °C in the proverbial pipeline thanks to the thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans. That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. At current rates, the chances of exceeding that target within just 20 years are between 25 and 50 percent.

Even with draconian cuts beginning in 2012 or 2015, the chances are slim of avoiding the magical guesstimate of what will produce irrevocable climate change by the middle of the century. So saying we all agree on the need to keep things below two degrees is nothing more than words on paper. What Copenhagen needs to produce are global, incremental, binding and enforceable emission-reduction targets.

1. They have to be inclusively global because there is no point in giving a pass to developing nations just because they aren't responsible for more than a small fraction of the existing excess carbon in the oceans and atmosphere. Yes, China and India's per capita emissions are tiny compared to the U.S., Canada and Australia's, but as the man said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." What we might be looking at is a gradually converging per-capita emissions allowance that gives the poorest countries some room to grow while the rest of us tighten our belts. That sounds reasonable. The problem is the target allowance that everyone on the planet will have to share is something like five percent of what Americans currently emit. Still, the Earth's sinks can only absorb so much carbon, and we'll have to find some politically palatable way of sharing the pie.
2. They have to be incremental, not just long-term, because it matters very much how quickly we reduce emissions. It's vital to keep in mind that it's cumulative emissions that count, not rates of emissions, as the recent "trillionth tonne" papers show. If we wait until 2030 or 2040 to really get behind the mule, we'll have already emitted enough carbon to commit the world to warming far beyond a mere two degrees. So Copenhagen must produce targets for each of the next four or five decades. An 80 percent cut by 2050 sounds good, but only if it's accompanying by a 2020 target of something on the order of 25 to 40 percent below 1990s levels, and similar reductions in the following decades.

   Under the Waxman-Markey bill now before the U.S. Senate, at best emissions in 2020 will be 17 percent below 2005 levels, which is tantamount only to returning to 1990 levels. This will be insufficient. The Europeans know it and are calling for a 2020 goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions. Does that mean Waxman-Markey should be rejected? Only if you think it's a good idea for the Obama administration to go to Copenhagen with no domestic commitment in hand.

3. They have to be binding, for obvious reasons, although Kyoto is binding and that hasn't stopped Canada from ignoring its commitment under that international treaty. Binding treaty language isn't worth much, but without it, there's no point at all.
4. And they have to be enforceable. This is perhaps the least likely element to be included in any Copenhagen treaty. National legislatures are loathe to accept limits of any kind (i.e., trade sanctions) set by international authorities. I doubt the U.S. Senate will approve any treaty that forces America to do anything. There's also the reality that neither the U.S. nor China are in a position to restrict trade between them, so entwined are the two economies. But the fact remains that without some kind of punitive action ssociated with failing to keep to an emissions-reduction schedule, there will be little incentive for anyone to stick to the program.

That's what Copenhagen has to produce.

The news is full of optimistic reports of late, reminding us all just how easy it will be to make serious cuts in our energy and fossil-fuel consumption patterns. And compared to the task facing negotiators at Copenhagen (or more precisely, at the closed-door, pre-conference meetings in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen), the "energy revolution" will be easy. After all, there's plenty of energy-efficient and clean renewable technologies on the shelf, ready to be put to work. Analogous solutions in politics are always more much shorter supply. But what's the alternative?