As we approach the beginning of the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December, international negotiations are focused on developing a climate policy framework for the post-2012 period, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period will have ended.  In addition to negotiations under the UNFCCC, other intergovernmental outlets, including the G8(+5) and the Major Economies Forum, are trying to reach common ground among the world’s major emitters of greenhouse gases.  To date, these efforts have not produced a politically, economically, and environmentally viable structure for a future climate agreement.

In the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements (a global effort which now includes 35 research initiatives in Australia, China, Europe, India, Japan, and the United States), we continue to investigate promising post-2012 international policy architectures, as part of our on-going effort to help the countries of the world identify the key design elements of a post-2012 architecture that is scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically pragmatic.

One approach we have recently examined is a “portfolio of domestic commitments,” an approach which could be effective, but more flexible and politically palatable than other international arrangements.  Under such a scheme, nations would agree to honor commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions laid out in their own domestic laws and regulations.  A portfolio of commitments might emerge from a global meeting such as the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, or a smaller number of major economies could negotiate an agreement among themselves, and then invite other countries to join.

Despite the obvious differences between such a system and the conventional “targets and time tables” approach embodied in the Kyoto Protocol, negotiators should not dismiss this new approach out of hand.  There are several ways to construct a portfolio of domestic commitments, and negotiators have numerous levers available to tailor an agreement to meet their political, economic, and environmental goals.  In a recent Harvard Project Viewpoint, I outlined some basic features of a portfolio approach, highlighted a few major issues and concerns, and discussed the potential feasibility of this approach.

The Portfolio of Domestic Commitments Approach

The core of a portfolio of domestic commitments is agreement among a set of member countries to conform to the climate change mitigation requirements specified by their respective domestic laws, regulations, and official planning documents (the last being domestically binding in centrally planned economies).  The portfolio approach gives member countries free rein to dictate the precise form their domestic commitments will take, whether those be greenhouse gas cap-and-trade systems, carbon taxes, intensity targets, performance or technology standards, or other instruments.  A portfolio agreement should be highly credible, given that it is grounded in domestic commitments, binding in and enforceable by law previously made by the very governments signing on to the international agreement.

Domestic commitments might take the form of specified greenhouse gas emission targets or the form of particular actions that could be taken to reduce emissions, both envisioned in the Bali Action Plan as “nationally-appropriate mitigation actions” (NAMAs).  A target-based approach has the advantage of being transparent and relatively simple to aggregate across countries to reach a global target.  On the other hand, action-oriented goals can be more concrete and may be easier for many governments to implement in the short term.  There is no reason why both targets and actions could not be pursued simultaneously.  Coexistence of multiple approaches is not uncommon in environmental policy.

Ongoing commitments for several years into the future are necessary to stabilize and eventually reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to combat climate change.  Under a portfolio approach, these domestic commitments could be represented in a table of national schedules attached to an agreement.  Australia has proposed a model agreement that includes such schedules. The schedules would signal a continuing commitment to the international community, and their inclusion in an international agreement would provide a disincentive for member nations to deviate from them in the future.

Countries would not be limited to acting unilaterally to meet their domestic commitments.  They could choose to submit joint goals or targets — for example, on a regional level — or link with other countries through a multinational carbon trading regime to reduce costs.  (Such linkage is the subject of another Harvard Project paper — by Judson Jaffe and myself.)  The portfolio approach would not be a bar to international cooperation.

A primary consideration for a portfolio agreement is the well-established principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”  This principle acknowledges that responsibility is shared for solving the climate change challenge, but suggests that historical differences in contribution to the problem and economic and technical disparities be reflected in varying national commitments.  A portfolio of domestic commitments may be particularly well-suited to implement this principle because it allows for countries to make commitments along a continuum of stringency, rather than dividing nations into two groups as did the Kyoto Protocol.  The placement of each country upon the continuum would depend on an array of political, economic, and environmental concerns.  (On this, see recent Harvard Project papers by Jeffrey Frankel and Valentina Bosetti, and by Sheila Olmstead and myself.)

Key Issues for Negotiators

Negotiators will inevitably need to tackle a number of key issues in crafting a portfolio agreement, three of which we highlight here.  The first is the extent to which domestic commitments could be relaxed in later years to reflect changed circumstances.  The second is the formal status such an agreement would have under international law.  Third is the necessity to monitor conformance to domestic commitments.

Rigidity of Commitments

One approach would be for a portfolio agreement to log domestic commitments and allow countries to relax those commitments in response to changes in political or economic climate or advances in the understanding of the threat of climate change.  In essence, such an agreement would function as a depository for current domestic legislation, serving the dual roles of information-gathering and diplomatic recognition of shared commitment to the climate problem.  It is difficult to imagine countries registering objections to such an agreement, given that they would not be binding themselves to future commitments.

For precisely this reason, however, climate negotiators may wish to stay the hand of future governments by barring relaxation or abandonment of preexisting climate commitments.  In other words, the agreement could set minimum commitments on a country-specific basis.  Amendments would be allowed only if they maintained or strengthened domestic commitments to climate change mitigation.  Such a precommitment strategy is not generally included in domestic legislation or plans, and it is likely to require careful wording and additional domestic legislation to become effective in some countries.

There is surely the possibility of domestic commitments being ignored by future leaders, but note that this concern is not unique to the portfolio approach.  All climate policy architectures — indeed, all international agreements — face this problem, and the question is whether the precommitment challenge is greater under this approach than it would be under others.  One possible compromise position would be to allow revision of domestic commitments, but only at specified intervals, in order to account for dramatic shifts in economic or environmental situations and expectations.

Type of Legal Instrument

Another key issue is the official legal status of a portfolio of domestic commitments.  There are a number of possible structures for such an agreement, each with different implications under international law.  A treaty is the most formal option and would be the most binding on participating nations.  Treaty law is relatively well-developed, as compared with the law governing other international instruments, and the law of treaties provides a framework for enforcement and dispute resolution.  But treaties are difficult to craft and face the perils of national ratification.

Outside of a treaty, there are various other instruments of international law that could be used in the portfolio approach.  For example, in the United States, congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements can be entered into by the President and do not require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, as do treaties.  (See, for example, Nigel Purvis’s work on executive agreements.)   Other “soft law” instruments, such as explicitly nonbinding agreements, political declarations, and U.N. declarations, are fallback options which merit consideration for implementing a portfolio approach.  Ultimately, negotiators will choose the best instrument, based on how open countries are to the agreement and what obligations the agreement imposes.

Monitoring and MRV

Throughout the industrialized countries — and increasingly in the emerging economies — domestic environmental regulations include internal mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement.  A portfolio agreement could rely on countries to be prompted by international pressure to enforce their commitments, or an agreement could take a more active role.  The agreement could, for example, put in place an international monitoring body, license domestic entities in each country to monitor national commitments, or suggest model codes for enforcement.  International assistance may be necessary to aid countries lagging in technical or administrative capacity to monitor greenhouse gas emissions and enforce domestic policies.  More broadly, the agreement would need to define—to the extent possible—uniform measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) procedures and assure that all countries could implement these procedures.

Feasibility of a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

A portfolio of domestic commitments has several advantages as the foundation of a future international climate policy architecture.  The agreement could be flexible enough to allow countries to implement the mitigation instruments of their choice and link those instruments with domestic instruments in other nations if they so chose.  It could also allow for countries to accede at various times, thus giving them adequate time to prepare to participate.  (See David Victor’s Harvard Project paper on climate accession deals.)   This approach could also be an ideal vehicle for implementing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, since member countries would not need to be lumped together into rigid tiers of commitment (as they are under the dichotomous Annex I approach of the Kyoto Protocol).

Perhaps most crucial is the political feasibility of the portfolio approach.  In recent months, several major economies have expressed willingness to consider a climate policy architecture along these lines, including Australia, India, and the United States.  For this reason alone, the portfolio approach merits serious consideration, despite the significant hurdles to negotiating an effective portfolio agreement.

The concerns regarding this approach to a future global climate policy architecture are significant, but so are its potential advantages.  In general, there are real challenges to developing any post-2012 international climate policy architecture that is scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically pragmatic.  The challenges facing this approach are no greater – and may be less – than those facing other means of addressing the threat of global climate change.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Countdown to Copenhagen: Foundation for a Low Carbon Future

"Oh, shit."They say that everyone who finally gets it about climate change has an "Oh, shit" moment -- an instant when the full scientific implications become clear and they suddenly realize what a horrifically dangerous situation humanity has created for itself.

Listening to the speeches, ground-breaking in their way, that President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao delivered Sept. 22 at the U.N. Summit on Climate Change, I was reminded of my most recent "Oh, shit" moment.  It came in July, courtesy of the chief climate adviser to the German government. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chair of an advisory council known by its German acronym, WBGU, is a physicist whose specialty, fittingly enough, is chaos theory. Speaking to an invitation-only conference at New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, Schellnhuber divulged the findings of a study so new he had not yet briefed Chancellor Angela Merkel about it. If its conclusions are correct -- and Schellnhuber ranks among the world's half-dozen most eminent climate scientists -- it has monumental implications for the pivotal meeting in December in Copenhagen, where world leaders will try to agree on reversing global warming.

Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body whose scientific reports are constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that by 2020 rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent (compared with 1990) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020 -- in other words, quit carbon entirely within 10 years. Germany and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by "buying" emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries' deadlines by a decade or so.

Needless to say, this timetable is light-years more demanding than what the world's major governments are talking about in the run-up to Copenhagen. The European Union has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, which it will increase to 30 percent if others -- i.e., the United States -- do the same. Japan's new prime minister likewise has promised 25 percent reductions by 2020 if others do the same. Obama didn't mention a number, but the Waxman-Markey bill, which he supports, would deliver less than 5 percent reductions by 2020. Obama's silence -- doubtless a function of the fact that Republicans are implacably opposed to serious emissions cuts -- allowed Hu to claim the higher ground at the U.N. Hu went further than any Chinese leader has before, pledging to curb greenhouse gas emissions growth by a "notable margin" by 2020. Obama dropped his own bombshell, however, urging that all G-20 governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. "The time we have to reverse this tide is running out," Obama declared. Alas, the WBGU study suggests that our time is in fact all but gone.

G-8 leaders agreed in July to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 F) above the pre-industrial level at which human civilization developed.  Schellnhuber, addressing the Santa Fe conference, joked that the G-8 leaders agreed to the 2C limit "probably because they don't know what it means." In fact, even the "brutal" timeline of the WBGU study, Schellnhuber cautioned, would not guarantee staying within the 2 C target. It would merely give humanity a two out of three chance of doing so -- "worse odds than Russian roulette," he wryly noted.  "But it is the best we can do." To have a three out of four chance, countries would have to quit carbon even sooner. Likewise, we could wait another decade or so to halt all greenhouse emissions, but this lowers the odds of hitting the 2 C target to fifty-fifty. "What kind of precautionary principle is that?" Schellnhuber asked.

There is a fundamental political assumption underlying the WBGU study:  that the right to emit greenhouse gases is shared equally by all people on earth. Known in diplomatic circles as "the per capita principle," this approach has long been insisted upon by China and most other developing countries and thus is seen as essential to an agreement in Copenhagen, though among G-8 leaders only Merkel has endorsed it. The WBGU study applies the per capita principle to the world population of 7 billion people and arrives at an annual emissions quota of 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide per person. That's harsh news for Americans, who emit 20 tons per person annually, and it explains why the U.S. deadline is the most imminent. But China won't welcome this study either. China's combination of high annual emissions and huge population gives it a deadline only a few years later than Europe's and Japan's.

"I myself was terrified when I saw these numbers," Schellnhuber told me.  He urges governments to agree in Copenhagen to launch "a Green Apollo Project."  Like John Kennedy's pledge to land a man on the moon in ten years, a global Green Apollo Project would aim to put leading economies on a trajectory of zero carbon emissions within 10 years.  Combined with carbon trading with low-emissions countries, Schellnhuber says, such a "wartime mobilization" might still save us from the worst impacts of climate change. The alternative is more and more "Oh, shit" moments for all of us.

Related Links:

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Just three months from now, in the final days before Christmas, we will know -- for better or worse -- what happened at Copenhagen. Looking back at a year that was described to me, as it opened, as "arguably the most important in human history", we will know whether the world has matched up to it.

So now, as the world enters the end game with a chain of summits this week, experts are beginning to work out what an agreement deal might look like, and whether that would be sufficient.

First up is a report from a well regarded Anglo-Indian team from the HSBC bank, based at its Climate Change Centre of Excellence in Bangalore. The HSBC team has little time for the so far ineffectual U.N. negotiations -- the report quotes a description of them as "an aquarium full of hamsters connected to rudimentary motors" producing "a lot of frantic running, a lot of sweat and heat but, in the end, very little light."

And, recalling how the negotiations at Kyoto almost failed twelve years ago, the document cheerfully stresses that "Copenhagen should be much more difficult ... as far more countries are involved and much more is at stake."

Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the report -- entitled The Emperor, the Nightingale and the Phoenix (all will be explained later) -- concludes that "a framework deal will be done." The authors base their "cautious optimism" on two factors, both of which have some validity.

One is that almost all governments sincerely want a deal, however much they may disagree on the details. And the other is that the build up to the conference has already created "significant policy momentum" and "accelerating political, business and social action." Together, the authors say, these have led to "significant convergence" which is taking the world "close to a reasonable deal in Copenhagen that could be deepened later."

What could that look like? First, says the report, there should be agreement to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade, with a long-term commitment by industrialized countries to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. That much is already virtually secured: agreement along those lines was reached at the G8 and Major Economies Forum summits in Italy last July.

Somewhat harder, but still relatively straightforward, would be its insistence on an agreement that total global emissions should be cut by 50 percent by mid century -- implying, as it does, that developing countries will, in time, have to reduce their emissions. They refused to endorse the figure in L'Aquila but did, nevertheless, agree that their pollution should "peak as soon as possible."

Next, the report recommends that all countries should commit to "low-carbon growth paths", with developing countries agreeing to a framework of the cumbersomely entitled Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Again that should be possible: the main question would be whether the NAMAs are to be voluntary or compulsory.

There are also recommendations about protecting forests, aiding technology transfer, establishing carbon markets, and addressing emissions from aviation and shipping and trade. But the really controversial stuff concerns the mid-term targets that rich countries should adopt and the amount of finance they will provide for developing ones.

The report suggests that a realistic target would be a reduction of 15-20 percent on 1990 emission levels by 2020, which falls far short of the 25-40 percent the scientific consensus says will be necessary. And it suggests starting with an $8-12 billion package for 2010-2012, much less than developing countries want.

Current targets, it explains, work out on average at an 11 percent reduction in emissions, and it believes that the 15-20 percent level "could be achieved with an injection of political will." And the financial figure represents roughly a doubling of present commitments, though the report believes that it will end up towards the lower end of its forecast range.

The big question, the team admits, is whether developing countries will accept such relatively unambitious undertakings from industrialized ones "on the basis that something is better than nothing."

And that is where the emperor, the nightingale and the phoenix come in, all appropriately taken from the writings of Copenhagen's favorite author, Hans Christian Andersen. The emperor, as in the one that has no clothes, represents failure in Kyoto, with global warming heading towards an apocalyptic five degree centigrade rise. The nightingale, from the story of one that saves the life of another emperor, envisages complete disaster being averted through implementing present best practices -- but still likely resulting in a destructive temperature increase of around three degrees.

Only the phoenix scenario, where the world is reborn as leaders and citizens agree to take climate change seriously and implement "the toughest scientific recommendations," offers a good chance of meeting the vital two degree target.

The HSBC team reckons that its proposed deal would put the world into a "nightingale" scenario, providing the opportunity to move on to tougher measures. "It is important" it says "to be realistic about what the negotiations can deliver."

In just three months we will know how prescient, or otherwise, it has been.

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (right) greets Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.UN Photo/Mark GartenUnlike some of his predecessors, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon seems to be a brave man, for he has had the courage to chide his most powerful paymasters for failing to do enough to combat climate change.

What's more, he did so last week just as the leaders were congratulating themselves for what they had achieved when they met in L'Aquila, Italy. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called it an "historic agreement." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was a "clear step forwards," and President Barack Obama reported: "We have made a good start."

But the UN chief was unimpressed. "The policies they have stated so far are not enough," he said. "We must work according to the science. This is politically and morally imperative."

Others were more outspoken. "A massive opportunity has been missed here," said Paul Cook, director of the British aid charity, Tearfund. And Guruswamy Ananthapadmanabhan, Greenpeace International's Program Director, denounced "a disgusting abdication of leadership and responsibility."

Most of the media followed suit. Reuters reported "disappointments." The Christian Science Monitor spoke of a "a failure to find common ground." And the New York Times said "things fell apart."

Yet another interpretation is possible. There is an argument to be made that, while the leaders failed to take action commensurate with the scale and speed of the climate crisis, they still achieved more than had been expected, established some common ground and made a meaningful deal at December's vital negotiating meeting in Copenhagen more possible, not less.

L'Aquila, in fact, got two summits for the (admittedly expensive) price of one. The first was the annual G8 summit of the world's most powerful countries; the second a special climate summit of major industrialized and developing countries, convened by President Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.

Both meetings -- in identical words -- endorsed a maximum permissible global temperature rise of two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. This may not seem much -- after all, scientists have been saying for years that the world should not heat up beyond this to give it a fighting chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. But the United States was resisting that level until a few weeks ago, as were the leading developing countries just days before.

This is a genuine, if long overdue, advance, and it sets an important vital benchmark needed for setting meaningful targets. There was some progress in this area too, with G8 countries accepting, again for the first time, that their emissions should be cut by 80 percent by 2050, a precondition to developing countries agreeing a global 50 percent by then.

The developing country leaders refused to endorse that global target, but they did accept that they should do more than merely reduce the rate of growth of their emissions, agreeing that they should "peak" (and so start coming down in absolute terms) "as soon as possible." Yet again, this is the first time this has happened, and represents a significant shift in attitudes.

There were also some signs of movement on the thorniest issue of all -- funds to help developing countries fight climate change and adapt to its consequences. President Obama, who chaired the climate summit (participants were keen to avoid it being led by the prime minister of the host country, the climate-skeptical Silvio Berlusconi) gave the floor to Gordon Brown to outline his proposal for a $100 billion a year fund. The leaders agreed to instruct their finance ministers to study the idea and report back the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in late September, just what Britain's leader wanted.

Of course, there is much to criticize. The financial proposal remains just that, even though it is the first to be put on the table. The 80 percent reduction target did not have a firm base year, vaguely stipulating "1990 or more recent years" in deference to the United States and Japan. It would have been much better to have achieved a global target. And above all, there was no target for 2020; so far, rich countries have only offered about a third of the 25-40 percent cuts needed.

Ban Ki-Moon was right than what was agreed was far from enough. But the summits were not the disaster some have depicted. Yvo de Boer, the blunt head of the climate treaty secretariat, said the outcome "hasn't given me a huge rush of adrenalin," but represented "a careful, but useful step towards Copenhagen." That seems about right.

A senior source added that the meetings also "established a new sense of collective purpose and momentum among the leaders about reaching agreement in Copenhagen." If so, that could be the most important result of all. But it needs to lead to greater action -- and do so fast.

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

If you haven't been in Italy you might not have realized it, but two events just occurred there in which leaders of the 17 largest-emitting countries tried to make progress in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks this December. 

The first event was the annual Group of Eight (G8) meeting, which brings together the eight largest industrialized countries and now regularly has global warming on the agenda (as I discussed last year). The second was the "Leaders Summit" of the Major Economies Forum (which I also covered), which brings together the world's 17 largest emitting countries. The G8 declaration (PDF) was released on July 8th, while the Major Economies Forum statement (PDF) was released July 9th.

These meetings are notorious for taking small steps and are often criticized for being "big on grand statements and small on detailed actions."  But how often do you get the leaders of the world's biggest countries in one place making joint political declarations?  And given the critical need for heads of government to weigh in if we are going to have any chance of success in Copenhagen (as I discussed here), these events come at an important juncture.

Over the past week there have been a lot of moving parts, so I thought I would try to help pull it all together and frame the context.  So here goes.

Global "Yardstick" to Solving Global Warming.  A number of countries have set forth an objective to hold global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). In the past, the U.S., Japan, Russia, and Canada had all notably refused to set forth that "yardstick" as the aim of the world's efforts to solve global warming.  It took a little nudging -- including a letter from the CEOs of 47 major U.S. organizations to President Obama -- but this "yardstick" is now a committment in the G8 agreement, and is included in the Major Economies Forum statement.  So effectively you have the world leaders (or at least the major emitters) committing to keep global warming to a level below which scientists tell us a number of very damaging impacts will occur. 

So now all the world's actions will be judged against that yardstick, and we'll be able to ask: "how does this or that measure up?"

Global Emissions Objective in the Medium-Term.  If you read any of the stories prior to the meetings, there was a lot of back and forth on the issue of whether or not there would be a commitment to cut global emissions 50 percent by 2050.  Well, here is where it ended up:

In some sense this is where this process was last year (as I discussed here), but of course the world hoped for more this year with the change in U.S. administration.  We'll need to be much further along in that debate on this issue by Copenhagen.   But more important than this "global effort" in the medium term is the contribution that individual countries undertake toward this global effort and their path to that target (as I'll discuss below).

Developed Country Targets.  The G8 countries agreed to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050.  They fudged the year against which to compare that target (1990 or a more current year), which is very important in terms of how much emissions are put into the atmosphere.  But this is still a modestly big step for these countries, as they are now committing to a significant trajectory to reduce their emissions.  While this is where President Obama has been as a part of his campaign and since he has taken office, this is the first time that he committed to this in a meaningful way internationally.  And for Canada and Russia this is a stronger signal than they've provided to date (although there has been some "misunderstanding" on the Russian side about what they actually committed to, as this AFP story outlines).

So now you have the world's wealthiest countries committing to dramatically shift to clean energy.  Some are likely to argue that this will have a huge cost, but all credible analysis (including NRDC's, available here, and even that of the climate opposition's, available here) shows that the cost is very reasonable for this transition -- less than a postage stamp per day in the U.S.  And oh, by the way, we create a bunch of new jobs (as we've documented here).

Developing Country Emissions Reductions.  In the international debate, the issue of whether and how much developing countries would reduce their emissions has been at the top of the agenda for a while (as I've discussed here and here).  While the actions and statements from developing countries have greatly changed over the years, the political commitment from developing country leaders at formal summits hasn't solidified that new position.  Well, that has changed slightly this week as the Major Economies Forum agreed that developing countries will commit to "slow the rate of growth of their emissions in the near-term" (as the New York Times is also reporting).  The G8 agreement includes even stronger language, but it's in a sense easier to agree to, as it doesn't require developing country support.

And, importantly, the Major Economies Forum also agreed that developing countries (actually all countries) would:

While much more clarity will need to be provided before the U.S. Senate will be completely satisfied, this is a solid building block to get an agreement in Copenhagen and ultimately something that the U.S. can implement domestically.

Working to Develop the Financing Incentives for Developing Countries.  Providing "significant, targeted, and effective" incentives to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of global warming will be essential to getting a strong agreement in Copenhagen.  That is an important but difficult challenge for many developed countries, including the U.S. (as is evidenced by our efforts to convince Congress to deliver this funding in the climate bill and elsewhere as I discussed here).

That is why the Major Economies Forum "asked the G20 finance ministers to take up the climate financing issues and report back to us at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in the fall" (as President Obama committed to in his final statement after the Major Economies Forum meeting).  So the upcoming G20 meeting will now become a hugely important moment to see whether or not developed countries can deliver the necessary financial incentives to help to break open the current stalemate between developed and developing countries. 

-----

It isn't too surprising that the stories on the global warming events are painting a mixed picture.  This kind of event is always a mixed bag -- you want more good parts and less bad parts.

And when looking at what was achieved at these two global warming events, I think there are some emerging signs to build upon.  By no stretch of the imagination are we there yet, as we still have a lot of work to complete before we'll be in a position to get a strong agreement in Copenhagen. 

Looking at the totality of what was accomplished, I would say global warming won this "coin flip" ... just barely, but enough at this stage in the negotiations to warrant a little optimism.

We have less than six months to put the world on the correct path, and the solutions are obvious and available. But the politics to solve global warming are "complicated."  It's easy to feel as if the challenge can't be addressed quickly enough (as I discussed here).  So I thought it was perfect to end with the words of President Obama after the Major Economies Forum meeting (since I couldn't say it any better):

"... I think that one of the things we're going to have to do is fight the temptation towards cynicism, to feel that the problem is so immense that somehow we cannot make significant strides.

But ultimately, we have a choice.  We can either shape our future, or we can let events shape it for us.  We can fall back on the stale debates and old divisions, or we can decide to move forward and meet this challenge together...We know that the problems we face are made by human beings.  That means it's within our capacity to solve them.  The question is whether we will have the will to do so, whether we'll summon the courage and exercise the leadership to chart a new course.  That's the responsibility of our generation, that must be our legacy for generations to come, and I am looking forward to being a strong partner in this effort."

Related Links:

Prelude to COP15: Climate justice actions sweep the U.S. before Copenhagen talks

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Where is all the damn climate data?

With deepest apologies to INXS.

Congregate, heads of state, don’t be late, big G8
Planet’s fate, cannot wait,
Don’t stall debate or hesitate, designate your carbon rate
A one world state, Italianate, on July 8, won’t abrogate
A gentle trait, a balding pate, a girlish gait, pontificate
We’ll predicate our specs ornate, officiate, not deviate
Green groups berate, gesticulate, packed in a crate, their sounds abate.
Congregate, heads of state, pasta ate, it was great.

Fritter away more of your time by checking out previous verses.

 Boom boom, ain’t it G8 to be crazy.WhiteHouse.gov

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

First Things First: Conflicting early reports obscured events at a major international summit in L’Aquila, Italy. The Group of Eight has apparently resolved to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, but disagreed on thorny “mid-term targets,” to be reached by 2020 or so. And key players, such as the United States, have no mandatory climate programs yet to enforce this goal. Unimpressed, China, India, and other developing nations declined to offer their own specific targets. Time is running out before the world convenes for end-of-the-year climate talks in Copenhagen, but efforts to salvage some kind of international program continue.

Time’s also running out on a longer-term clock, according to scientific recommendations for prompt, aggressive pollution reductions. The G-8 nations acknowledged that warming should not proceed beyond a 2 degree C (3.6 degree F) threshold. That’s the thumbnail mark past which many scientists say positive feedbacks can drive the climate toward truly unpredictable change. (Global average temperatures have risen nearly 0.8 degrees C since record-keeping began; the atmosphere is locked into another 0.6 degree rise.) The New York Times this morning offers the most cutting assessment of the situation, with developing nations throwing out their proposed goals, but agreeing to make undefined, “meaningful” improvements.

If You Are Reading This, You’re on the List: International climate talks follow guidelines set up in the early 1990s. They divide the world into developed and developing nations and set out different roles for each in addressing the problem. Bridging the rich-poor divide is central to global agreement, which is why the U.S. and China are in such frequent talks (to the European Union’s chagrin).

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences publishes the sketch of a new paradigm.  Stephen Pacala and colleagues suggest that the worldwide distribution of the top billion or so richest individuals drive national targets. Under this approach, the number of high per-capita emitters in a country would shape its climate goals. The authors -- who include Princeton’s Pacala and Robert Socolow of “stabilization wedge” fame -- argue that their scheme fairly treats all high-emitting individuals the same, regardless of nationality.

Act II, Scene i: In Washington, the climate debate shifts to the Senate, where the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee and others opened hearings. Four top administration officials called for what Energy Secretary Stephen Chu labeled “a new industrial revolution” in “sustainable, clean energy,” including nuclear power — a central goal of Republicans that rankles many on the left. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) said his state’s reliance on coal causes him to take potential price rises into account, a far from unique position among Midwestern Democrats.

Issues potentially fatal to the bill have already risen, in agriculture, international trade, and coal-fired electricity. (Legislators also vote with their own dollars, like anyone else.) EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the panel that the U.S. is falling behind other nations in clean-energy investment, a statement buoyed by this New York Times piece about China’s surge in manufacturing wind turbines. At first fast-tracking legislation, Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) EPW Committee will now take up the bill formally after the Senate’s summer recess.

Oh, behave!: A Wall Street Journal profile of Obama’s new regulatory chief, Cass Sunstein, is a good foray into behavioral economics, a favorite topic of this White House. Sunstein, the bestselling co-author of Nudge and a Harvard law professor, is waiting for Senate confirmation to be head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Behavioral economics upends common assumptions about human rationality and decision-making, and its implications have moved into government. Obama wrote shortly after taking office, “Far more is now known about regulation — not only when it is justified, but also what works and what does not.” Sunstein’s research has led him to skepticism about dominant approaches to confront global warming, an approach balanced elsewhere in the administration.

A 2007 energy efficiency law that set new targets for lighting was thought to be a death knell for conventional incandescent bulbs. The power of rules to shape economic behavior was on display in this NYT piece about how the new law accelerated competition to build a better lightbulb. Compact fluorescents, heralded as less expensive and longer-lasting, don’t always work well with dimmers and in some cases contain poisonous amounts of mercury. Light-emitting diodes are expensive but becoming competitive because of their long lifetimes. Inventors are shrinking Thomas Edison’s conventional bulb. Still harder might be to convince light bulb manufacturers to pre-install energy-efficient bulbs, lamps, and fixtures to guide consumer choice.

Newspaper Uses “S”-Word:Governments and firms around the nation are addressing complicated energy matters, evident in this South Carolina State editorial, aptly headlined, “Everyone must sacrifice on coal plant plan.” A coal-fired generator planned for the Pee Dee River basin is desirable because of the state’s demand for power, and “[w]ith power relatively cheap in South Carolina, there’s too little incentive to cut back.” The paper argues that “in the long term, whether this plant is ever built or not, we as a state must develop a multi-pronged approach to energy that includes conservation as well as traditional and new energy sources.”

Tough decisions abound. In Kentucky, two utilities have lowered initial estimates of rate increases. In Montana, officials may succumb to selling off rights to mine rich, untapped coal seams, the Associated Press reports. In Spain, local politics and economics knock heads over an aging nuclear plant.

Columnist in a Downard Trend: The WSJ’s Kimberley Strassel turns in another breathless climate change column. Climate Post cares not to weigh in about if or how any administration should treat a report in the vein of that submitted by EPA environmental economist Alan Carlin, her column’s subject. But certainly, given the level of (im)precision at which she’s writing, Strassel is factually incorrect to leave uncorrected statements such as, “The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend.”

Her error is rooted in the tricky subject of climate variability. Climate is very much a net phenomenon, a sum of various “forcings” that each nudge the atmosphere warmer or cooler. It’s a little bit like this: Imagine you are boiling water to make pasta, but need to add another two cups. When you add the cooler tap water, the temperature in the pot drops a bit. But t you would never conclude that the temperature drop indicates the burner isn’t working. Saying that the Earth is cooling is akin to saying that the stovetop water has stopped heating when the extra water is added. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a memo (PDF) clarifying this mistake. With El Nino gaining steam in the Pacific, temperatures for the next two years or so are expected to be warmer than they otherwise would be with “only” global warming.

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Climate deniers, hold your fire!

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Below is the energy and climate section of the official G8 statement released on July 8, 2009.  The full statement is online here (PDF).

Sustainable use of natural resources: climate change, clean energy and technology

60. The interlinked challenges of climate change, energy security and the sustainable and efficient use of natural resources are amongst the most important issues to be tackled in the strategic perspective of ensuring global sustainability. A shift towards green growth will provide an important contribution to the economic and financial crisis recovery. We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.

61. Science clearly shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions – mainly produced by the use of fossil fuels - are provoking dangerous climate change, putting at risk not only the environment and ecosystem services but the very basis of our present and future prosperity. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of moving towards low-carbon societies. At the same time, stable and secure energy availability is indispensable for social and economic development; it is essential to ensure global energy security and energy access in developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable. Immediate and resolute action is needed by all countries to build on existing and new technologies and to design and deliver innovative economic, environmental and energy policies.

62. We emphasise the paramount importance of technology development and diffusion on a global scale in meeting these challenges and accelerating the economic recovery, while moving towards a low-carbon society. It is indispensable to encourage efficient markets, competitive frameworks and consistent public policies, to enhance investments in energy efficiency, clean technologies and renewable energies, which will in turn create opportunities for businesses worldwide. We will take the lead in accelerating the transition towards a low-carbon economy based on green, sustainable growth, reflecting the need to lower dependence on traditional energy sources. We reiterate the commitment made at the London Summit to make the best possible use of our fiscal stimulus programmes, also in light of the deliberations of the G8 Environment Ministerial in Siracusa and the G8 Energy Ministerial in Rome, and will ensure that such packages will contribute substantially towards building new, cleaner economies that will create new jobs and bring about a green and sustainable recovery. We call upon other countries to join us in this endeavour.

Climate change and environment

Fighting climate change 63. This is a crucial year for taking rapid and effective global action to combat climate change. We welcome the decision taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Poznan to enter full negotiating mode, in order to shape a global and comprehensive post-2012 agreement by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen, as mandated by the Bali Conference in 2007. We must seize this decisive opportunity to achieve a truly ambitious global consensus.

64. We reconfirm our strong commitment to the UNFCCC negotiations and to the successful conclusion of a global, wide-ranging and ambitious post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen, involving all countries, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. In this context we also welcome the constructive contribution of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate to support a successful outcome in Copenhagen. We call upon all Parties to the UNFCCC and to its Kyoto Protocol to ensure that the negotiations under both the Convention and the Protocol result in a coherent and environmentally effective global agreement.

65. We reaffirm the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and notably of its Fourth Assessment Report, which constitutes the most comprehensive assessment of the science. We recognise the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C. Because this global challenge can only be met by a global response, we reiterate our willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter. As part of this, we also support a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years. Consistent with this ambitious long-term objective, we will undertake robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, taking into account that baselines may vary and that efforts need to be comparable. Similarly, major emerging economies need to undertake quantifiable actions to collectively reduce emissions significantly below business-as-usual by a specified year.

66. We recognize that the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs mandated under the Montreal Protocol is leading to a rapid increase in the use of HFCs, many of which are very potent GHGs. Therefore we will work with our partners to ensure that HFC emissions reductions are achieved under the appropriate framework. We are also committed to taking rapid action to address other significant climate forcing agents, such as black carbon. These efforts, however, must not draw away attention from ambitious and urgent cuts in emissions from other, more long-lasting, greenhouse gases, which should remain the priority.

Promoting the role of markets to reduce emissions

67. We believe that efficient markets, including carbon markets, supported by stable and predictable regulatory frameworks, are central to achieving these objectives. A wide range of competitive instruments and mechanisms, such as emissions trading schemes and performance-based regulation, constitute some of the most flexible and cost-effective means to foster economically sound investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean and innovative technologies. Other measures, including, where appropriate, incentives, fees, emission and other taxes, progressive reduction of fossil fuel subsidies, consumer labelling, innovative financing mechanisms and public-private partnerships, designed and applied consistently with our international obligations, can also be useful in the context of policies that promote green and sustainable development models and accelerate the transition towards a low carbon society.

68. The elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in environmental goods and services is essential to promote the dissemination of cleaner low-carbon energy technologies and associated services worldwide. Efforts should be intensified to ensure a successful outcome of the ongoing WTO negotiations on the liberalisation of environmental goods and services. Carbon leakage is an important issue to tackle. It must be addressed in a WTO compatible way. We support the aim of a comprehensive global agreement at Copenhagen, which we believe to be the most appropriate way to deal with any carbon leakage issues that may arise.

69. We support flexible, economically sound market-based approaches to emission reductions. In particular, cap & trade schemes, where implemented, have proved largely successful and improved understanding of the potential advantages, critical issues and indicators. The use of market mechanisms, including those under the Kyoto Protocol, provides opportunities to reduce emissions cost-effectively, while facilitating technology diffusion, low-carbon development and the involvement of emerging and developing countries. With a view to building on these experiences and to facilitate action under the global post 2012 agreement, we commit to:

a) further explore, taking into account national circumstances, the potential of carbon trading systems and their possible linkages;

b) cooperate among us and with other countries to expand carbon markets to the extent possible and reduce costs and align emission allowance trading schemes, with a view to developing transparent carbon markets which would expand to involve emerging and developing countries, including on a sectoral basis;

c) support the development, reform and enhancement of project, programmatic and policy-based offset mechanisms, including the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in order to encourage their use, enhance their effectiveness and environmental integrity, and facilitate actions from developing countries under the global, post-2012 agreement;

d) work with others to further develop market mechanisms under the Copenhagen agreement to possibly include sectoral trading and sectoral crediting mechanisms, to enhance the participation of emerging economies and developing countries in the market ensuring environmental integrity.

70. The private sector will continue to be an essential player in the efforts to address climate change. To trigger a change in direction and mobilise investments we will engage the private sector more actively, in order to bring its expertise into the international framework and enhance information exchange and partnerships between Governments and businesses.

71. Sectoral approaches can be useful tools to facilitate progressive involvement by emerging economies and reinforce economy-wide mitigation policies of developed countries. Analysis has highlighted the potential to curtail emissions by focusing on specific sectors and we welcome the ongoing work of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others in this respect. 72. Attention should also be devoted to sectors, such as international aviation and maritime transport, that represent a significant and growing source of emissions and are characterised by a predominantly international dimension. We will use our participation in ICAO, IMO and UNFCCC processes to reach an agreed outcome for the post-2012 period to rapidly advance towards accelerated emission reductions for the international aviation and maritime sectors.

Technology development and research

73. The development and deployment of technologies and know-how in developed and developing countries will play a crucial role both in mitigation and adaptation to climate change and in moving towards low-carbon growth models. It is essential to substantially improve energy and resource efficiency in key sectors, as well as to develop and disseminate low-carbon technologies, in particular renewable energy. In this context, we stress the critical role of an efficient system of intellectual property rights (IPR) to foster innovation. Capitalizing on new technologies will require a major scientific effort and policy initiatives. Building on our existing commitments to urgently advance the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, consistent with existing international obligations, we will:

a) encourage and facilitate the development, deployment and diffusion, particularly through the engagement and leveraging of critical private sector investment, of advanced appropriate technologies in emerging and developing economies, which permit a technological leap and avoid lock-in;

b) further promote international participation and cooperation in R&D activities and to this end we invite the IEA to further define its proposal for an international low-carbon energy technology platform;

c) promote technology roadmaps, such as those being prepared by the IEA, to further the development and demonstration of innovative technologies;

d) work with developing countries to build capacity to support the deployment, diffusion, demonstration and transfer of climate friendly technologies.

74. Recognising the importance of research and development, we committed in Toyako to increase investment in basic and applied clean technology research and development. We will intensify such efforts and explore options to enhance global technology cooperation. We ask our experts to assess progress in meeting these commitments, and report back by our meeting in Canada in 2010. We will promote further national and international fundamental research on the earth’s climate. We believe that provisions on financing technology research, development, deployment and diffusion should form an integral part of the post-2012 agreement.

Financing

75. Financing is central to achieving an agreement at Copenhagen and requires mobilisation of significant financial resources, both public and private. Given its capacity to innovate, the private sector should play a pivotal role in financing investments in new technologies. Public resources should therefore seek to leverage private-sector financing, to support research, development and demonstration of low carbon technologies in order to accelerate the development and deployment of early stage technologies, and to aid implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies in developing countries. To promote concerted efforts on technology and financing, we:

a) strive for greater predictability of international support and affirm our intention to contribute our fair share, in the context of an ambitious deal in Copenhagen;

b) affirm that all countries, except Least Developed Countries (LDCs), should participate in the financial effort to tackle climate change, according to criteria to be agreed, and we support consideration of the proposal by Mexico;

c) call for the elaboration and implementation of an effective financial arrangement to support the post-2012 regime. We underline that mobilizing financing for developing countries, through a broad range of financial sources, including financial assistance, is required for adaptation and mitigation, and to facilitate the transition to low-carbon economies. Financial support needs to be efficient, effective and equitable and therefore linked to results in terms of emission reductions and adaptation actions;

d) will work to ensure that the governance of mechanisms disbursing funds is transparent, fair, effective, efficient, and of balanced representation among developed and developing countries. We stress the importance of building on existing instruments and institutions, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), multilateral development banks, adaptation funds and bilateral assistance agencies and the Climate Investment Funds (Strategic Climate Fund and Clean Technology Fund);

e) promote public-private partnerships, in order to facilitate targeted and efficient investments in research, development, deployment and diffusion of clean technologies, while mobilising additional resources from the private sector.

Adaptation

76. Recognising that even implementing ambitious mitigation steps will not avoid further climate impacts, we will define and implement effective adaptation and capacity building policies. We are deeply concerned about the consequences of climate change on development, ecosystem services, water and food security, agricultural output, forests, health and sanitation, particularly for LDCs and SIDS, but also for the poor and most vulnerable in all countries. We underline the possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources. We will address these issues in a spirit of partnership between developed and developing countries and confirm our commitment to effectively address adaptation in the Copenhagen agreement. We will, in addition:

a) mainstream effective adaptation strategies and risk assessments into international cooperation programmes and assist developing States in integrating adaptation efforts into national development plans and policies;

b) significantly increase consideration of the role of ecosystems in adaptation measures, with a view to improving resilience of ecosystems, reducing vulnerability and underpinning new and sustainable growth models;

c) strengthen knowledge networks for adaptation and support for research and capacity building related to vulnerability and impact assessments as well as planning and implementation of adaptation measures;

d) address the need for financing for adaptation through appropriate bilateral and multilateral mechanisms.

Natural disasters

77. To address the increased threats of natural disasters and extreme weather phenomena caused by climate change, such as increased flooding, storm surges, droughts and forest fires, we will act to improve risk preparedness, prevention, monitoring and response times, particularly in developing countries, by:

a) defining common guidelines for disaster prevention and management to be used in developing national plans, in collaboration with the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), building on the Hyogo Framework for Action and on national experiences, as well as improving management of risks, awareness raising and training of the population and civil protection real-time response, such as logistical support for emergency situations;

b) supporting the ongoing work on the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).

Forests and land degradation

78. Aware that deforestation accounts for approximately 20% of annual CO2 emissions, and that forests are an essential repository of biological diversity and key to the livelihoods and rights of many people, we remain engaged in seeking the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and in further promoting sustainable forest management globally. We will:

a) support the development of positive incentives in particular for developing countries to promote emission reductions through actions to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. Considering that these measures will provide tangible results only in the medium term, it is also crucial to undertake early action initiatives to urgently tackle drivers of deforestation, and we will cooperate to identify innovative instruments in this respect, including through initiatives such as UN programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (IWG-IFR);

b) continue to support efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, including the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, as set out in the Bali Action Plan. We continue to support REDD and will consider the inclusion of financial mechanisms within the future global agreement on climate change;

c) encourage cooperation and the use of synergies between the UNFCCC and other international forest-related processes, and promote national strategies developed in collaboration with relevant players, including governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society groups and the private sector;

d) enhance cooperation with partner countries to combat illegal logging and trade in illegally-harvested timber, in accordance with our obligations under international agreements and building on our previous commitments and actions, including those under the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) processes. We reaffirm our intention to promote transparent timber markets and trade in legal and sustainably produced timber. In that regard, we will follow up, where appropriate, with concrete actions on the preliminary list of options presented in 2008 by the G8 Forest Experts Report on Illegal Logging;

e) reinforce international cooperation and information sharing for sustainable forest management, including use of forest resources, prevention and management of forest fires and monitoring of pests and diseases.

79. We are deeply concerned about desertification and land degradation in drylands, as both causes and consequences of climate change. Acknowledging the substantial impacts of these phenomena on human well-being, poverty, food security and the environment, we recognise the efforts of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and call upon the Parties and existing funding mechanisms to strengthen synergies among the Rio Conventions in the implementation of selected projects. Furthermore, we will work with developing country partners to integrate effective Sustainable Land Management (SLM) into relevant cooperation programmes and assist them in integrating SLM into national development plans policies and national climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Biodiversity

80. Recognising the intrinsic value of biodiversity and its essential contribution to economic and social well-being and the fundamental role of ecosystem services in poverty reduction, in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), we:

a) will reinforce our efforts to meet the 2010 Biodiversity Target to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level;

b) underline the necessity to establish a vision and an ambitious and achievable common framework for biodiversity beyond 2010, making use of the synergies between climate change and biodiversity policies. To this end, we endorse the “Carta di Siracusa” on Biodiversity as an effective means to promote a long-term strategy to enhance the conservation of biodiversity.

81. We also acknowledge that, despite international efforts to date, including within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing, exacerbated by climate change and impacts of human activities. In order to reduce the negative effects related to ecosystem degradation, including water and food scarcity and on carbon sinks and to strengthen the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, we will: a) strive to ensure that sustainable development policies take into account the benefits of ecosystem goods and services, integrating the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into all relevant sectors; b) work towards the completion of the negotiation on the international regime on access to and benefit sharing of genetic resources by 2010;

c) strengthen and broaden international, regional, national and local activities to conserve biodiversity;

d) continue to support the Potsdam Initiative launched in 2007 and in particular the ongoing global initiative, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”;

e) further encourage the engagement of civil society, the business community and other relevant stakeholders for biodiversity conservation activities.

82. Recognising the need for robust scientific assessment, and in order to improve the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we encourage the ongoing intergovernmental process under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), striving to complete this process at the earliest possible time.

Education for Sustainable Development

83. We appreciate and encourage accelerating the ongoing international efforts, in particular by the UNESCO and other organizations, in promoting Education for Sustainable Development, as a life-long learning process enabling communities to find new solutions to emerging social, economic and environmental challenges.

Clean and accessible energy

84. Together with climate change, long term sustainable development models for all countries must also address the fundamental issues of energy availability - particularly through clean energy - and energy poverty. Fostering investments in energy infrastructures, energy efficiency, diversification of the energy mix and technological innovation is key to ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy to long term world needs, while substantially curbing carbon emissions.

85. We will support and improve international predictable legal and regulatory frameworks as an essential prerequisite for well functioning energy markets and for reducing investment risks and uncertainties in producing, transit and consuming countries.

Energy efficiency, diversification of the energy mix and technology

86. We recognise the need to scale up investments in energy infrastructures and technological innovation, and to adapt regulatory and institutional frameworks where necessary, to increase energy diversification and improve energy efficiency, as the most cost-effective means of reducing emissions and driving a green recovery while substantially improving energy security. We reaffirm the significance of energy saving and efficiency programmes. To this end we:

a) commit to design and implement effective policies to improve energy efficiency in all the main sectors of our economies, and to actively promote conservation and energy efficiency among consumers;

b) support the IEA’s ongoing work on identification and dissemination of best practices, standards and recommendations for increasing energy efficiency.

87. We welcome the operational launch of the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), with a substantive agenda for promoting energy efficiency, and:

a) look forward to activities as envisaged in the IPEEC work plan to help countries implement energy efficiency policies and to further information on a Global Energy Efficiency Action Initiative, taking into account the 25 recommendations of the IEA, and ask IPEEC to report back to the G8 Summit in France in 2011;

b) ask IPEEC to incorporate the Sustainable Buildings Network, successfully developed as an important result under the energy pillar of the Heiligendamm Dialogue Process to exploit the potential of energy efficiency in residential, commercial and industrial buildings, and with a view to present its findings to the G8 Summit in France in 2011.

88. A comprehensive strategy to ensure sustainable development and long-term energy security must envisage a portfolio of different energy sources. In the context of diversification of the energy mix, renewable energies will play an essential role, as these meet the dual challenge of reducing emissions and lowering fossil-fuel consumption and dependence. We will:

a) improve policy and regulatory frameworks in order to boost investments in renewable energies, and promote their deployment and diffusion also in emerging and developing countries;

b) continue to support international cooperation and partnerships on renewable energies. We note with interest the launch of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) which we invite to cooperate with other international organisations to actively promote the deployment of renewable energies;

c) promote research and development of and investment in smart grids, as a means to accelerate efficient and secure integration of renewable energy sources and distributed generation into the electricity system and enhance energy efficiency;

d) support regional initiatives aiming at promoting renewable energy and low carbon technologies, such as the Mediterranean Solar Plan and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate;

e) considering the importance of further developing sustainable bioenergies and alternative fuels we welcome the work of the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) in developing a common methodological framework to measure greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and invite GBEP to accelerate its work in developing science-based benchmarks and indicators for sustainable biofuel production and to boost technological cooperation and innovation in bioenergy.

89. We witness that a growing number of countries have expressed interest in nuclear power programmes as a means to address climate change and energy security concerns. In the opinion of these countries, nuclear energy can play an essential role, as it meets the dual challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering fossil-fuel consumption. We reaffirm that the fundamental prerequisite for the peaceful use of nuclear energy is the international commitment to safeguards/non proliferation, safety and security (3S). In close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we will continue to promote the development and implementation of robust international treaties, standards, recommendations, and monitoring procedures both at international and national levels. In this context, we promote international collaboration at all levels, including cost-benefit analysis, research, infrastructure and human resources development, plant construction, operation, decommissioning and waste management, in order to ensure the highest technically available safety and security standards and accelerate further development and deployment of innovative technologies. We stress the key role played by the IAEA in promoting the highest standards of non proliferation, safety and security. We call on all countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy to engage in constructive international cooperation.

90. Considering the above mentioned challenges, the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) will continue in its work to consider nuclear safety and security issues. We welcome the initiative launched by the NSSG on nuclear safety and security Education and Training, aimed at building capacity in countries embarking on or expanding nuclear programmes.

91. We are aware that despite effective diversification strategies, fossil fuels will continue to be an essential component of the energy mix in many countries, at least in the medium term. The development and deployment of innovative technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is therefore expected to contribute substantially to reducing emissions. Reaffirming the commitment made in Tokyoo for the launch of 20 large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration projects globally by 2010, we will:

a) accelerate the design of policies, regulatory frameworks and incentive schemes focused on the development and deployment of CCS technology;

b) encourage greater involvement of developing countries by promoting collaboration and knowledge diffusion, also through IEA regional roundtables;

c) work to identify sources of financing for CCS demonstration projects;

d) invite the IEA, together with the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), to report on and further develop technology roadmaps and to work with the private sector to accelerate the construction and operation of demonstration projects. To this end, we welcome the work on criteria by the IEA to facilitate tracking of global progress on these projects in view of an update to be presented at our Summit in 2010;

e) following the launch of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) we invite it to actively cooperate with the ongoing activities of the IEA and the CSLF to ensure that these efforts are mutually reinforcing;

f) identify investment needs and overcome obstacles, including the potential development of innovative partnerships with multilateral financial institutions.

Combating energy poverty

92. Access to modern energy services is essential for human and social development, and for the achievement of the MDGs. Energy access and availability are tightly interlinked with the improvement of living conditions, both in rural and urban areas, providing for cleaner water, more effective sanitation and health services, better education systems and other essential services. Moreover, energy input for productive uses is crucial for job creation and income generation.

93. Noting that energy poverty remains widespread in many areas, most notably in Africa and Asia, we support the launch, together with interested countries, of the Expert-Level Working Group on Energy Poverty following the proposal made at the G8 Energy Ministers Meeting in Rome, and encourage it to submit a report before the 2010 Muskoka Summit. We are committed to take swift, resolute action, with developing country governments, international financial institutions, local communities and the private sector. Building upon previous commitments, we will:

a) promote the development of transparent national policies able to effectively use public resources and attract and stimulate private sector investments in rural electrification and the deployment of renewable energy systems and alternative cooking technologies and fuels;

b) encourage active involvement of local communities in rural electrification programmes, through the deployment of appropriate technologies and the development of skills and capabilities in cooperation with the private sector;

c) ensure that work to improve energy access contributes to put developing countries on the path to low-carbon development, by reducing high carbon lock-in, as well as supporting exploitation of new technologies, improved energy security and off-grid access in remote areas;

d) enhance capacity building initiatives, aimed at increasing energy efficiency, diffusion of renewable energies and efficient use of natural resources;

e) enhance capacity building initiatives for the sustainable development and deployment of oil, natural gas and electricity regional energy networks;

f) stimulate the mobilisation of increased financing for energy access, including through the improvement of investment conditions.

From the international economy section of the G8 statement:

Green recovery

39. The emergency response to the economic crisis should not overlook the opportunity to facilitate a global green recovery putting our economies on a path towards more sustainable and resilient growth. Our fiscal stimulus packages are increasingly investing in measures encouraging the creation of green jobs and low-carbon, energy efficient and sustainable growth. These include energy efficiency measures, investment in public transportation infrastructure, incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles, research in alternative sources of energy, support for renewable energy technologies, as well as in enhanced CO2 reduction, recycling and disposal such as Carbon Capture and Storage. We remain committed to enhance the environmental dimension of budgetary measures and to reinforce efforts to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. Along with the ongoing WTO negotiations on the liberalization of environmental goods and services, we will intensify efforts to make progress on the reduction or elimination of trade barriers on a voluntary basis on goods and services directly linked to addressing climate change, as agreed at the Toyako Summit. At the same time, we will ensure proper regulatory and other frameworks facilitating transition towards low-carbon and resource efficient growth. In this light, we call for a reduction of subsidies that artificially encourage carbon-intensive energy consumption.

Energy security, global energy markets and investment climate in the energy sector

40. The current financial and economic crisis should not delay cost-effective investments or programmed energy projects that would create jobs, enhance energy security and help limit greenhouse gas emissions in the short and medium term. We urge all countries and the private sector to adopt a long-term view in planning their investments. We are committed to promoting economic recovery together with a significant change in investment patterns that will accelerate the transition towards low-carbon, energy efficient growth models. We especially encourage more rapid application of the many cost-effective technologies already available to improve the energy efficiency of power generation facilities, buildings, industry and transport. Accelerated investment in low-carbon technologies is needed to minimize the existing and potential carbon lock-in represented by capital stock in buildings, factories, vehicles and electric power generating facilities.

41. In this context, we reaffirm our strong commitment to implement the St Petersburg Principles on Global Energy Security in our countries and call on others to join us in this effort. We invite the major international energy organisations to review and update their programmes and promote them in light of the changing energy challenges.

42. Unpredictable energy markets and highly volatile prices put at risk the ability of the industry to plan and implement investments in new infrastructures, consistently with long term demand dynamics. It is in the interest of both producers and consumers to enhance transparency and to strengthen their dialogue towards reducing excessive volatility in the market. Fossil fuel producing, transit and consuming countries must work together to increase stability and predictability of supply and demand patterns and promote investments in the energy sector, including by supporting and developing further predictable legal and regulatory frameworks. We welcome the progress made and the follow up initiatives of the Jeddah and London Energy Meetings in identifying obstacles to efficient energy markets. We call for better coordination among the international institutions and for the acceleration and strengthening of the existing initiatives towards a more structured dialogue, based on the outcome of the London Energy Meeting, between producing, transit and consuming countries, focused on improving the investment climate, discussing ways to reduce excessive volatility of prices and promoting energy security. To this effect we support the important work undertaken by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Energy Forum (IEF), including the activities of the High Level Steering Group of the IEF. We ask experts within the IEF to assess different options to reduce excessive volatility in oil prices.

43. Besides stable and predictable regulatory frameworks, transparent and well-functioning energy markets are essential prerequisites for reducing investment risks and uncertainties both in producing and consuming countries. We therefore emphasise the need for timely and reliable data on demand, supply, stocks, spare capacity and investment plans. To this end, we continue to strongly support the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), managed by the IEF, and call for all countries to cooperate in improving quality, completeness and timeliness of data. We also strongly support the IEF’s work on initiating the collection of annual data on investment plans. We believe that greater transparency in gas markets is required. We therefore call upon the IEF to examine the possibility of extending JODI-type activities to natural gas.

44. We encourage international initiatives to improve market transparency and functioning and to address excessive price volatility in commodities markets. In particular, we welcome recommendations by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) on regulation and supervision of financial derivative markets, and underline the importance of accelerating their implementation by national authorities and further cooperation between them and ask all countries to implement IOSCO’s recommendations. We ask the IOSCO Task Force on Commodity Markets to consider further possible specific improvements to the transparency and market supervision of oil futures markets and make specific recommendations.

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

International climate negotiations often seem like some sort of cosmic science fair project -- an aquarium full of hamsters connected to rudimentary motors. There's a lot of frantic running, a lot of sweat and heat, but in the end, very little light.

Faith in the UN climate process has dimmed. Joe Romm calls it a "dead man walking." The Copenhagen talks in December are generally discussed with the same dissonant mixture of urgency ("You have to do it in Copenhagen," says UNFCCC chair Yvo de Boer) and fatalism ("There is no movement," says German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel) as the last dozen rounds of international talks.

The Obama administration knows the danger of sclerosis and is working on several fronts to regain a sense of momentum. A good bit of that work will happen during this busy week, which will take the president to Russia to meet with President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin; he'll deliver a major speech on U.S.-Russia relations today. On Wednesday, he heads to Italy for the latest meeting of the G8 countries (US, France, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada). On Thursday, on the sidelines of the G8, Obama will convene a meeting of the Major Economies Forum (the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa). On Friday he'll head to Ghana and on Saturday he'll deliver a major speech on development and democracy.

At all these events the issue of climate change will play a role. All will reveal something about the Obama administration's approach to international climate negotiations.

The Grand Plan

International climate negotiations have primarily been channeled through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but many in the international community are losing faith in that process, or at least in its monopoly on negotiations. Getting 192 countries to sign on to a meaningful treaty is nigh impossible; the lowest common denominator among 192 wildly diverse countries turns out to be pretty damn low.

Oddly, it was the Bush administration that first saw a way around the thicket. In May 2007 it announced a series of Major Economies Meetings on climate and energy security. The idea was that the largest greenhouse gas emitters could more easily find areas of agreement working directly with one another, and that what consensus they could find would help break the logjam in the UNFCCC process.

The sincerity of Bush's effort was widely doubted -- he (in)famously advocated for purely voluntary measures -- but the basic wisdom of the strategy is apparent to, among others, the Obama administration. In fact Obama seems to be taking it even farther, working not only with smaller groups like the Major Economies Forum (MEF) and the G8, but bilaterally with other large emitters. What shape these smaller deals take could vary, from shared targets to technology R&D agreements, but again, the idea is to show that big emitters are finally acting, taking real steps. This will, it is hoped, cut through the Gordian you-go-first knot sure to bedevil the Copenhagen climate talks.

The strategy began with Todd Stern's initial efforts in China, but "you can definitely say we are looking for other partners," an administration official said.

Russia

Most members of the international community had written Russia off when it comes to climate change. It grudgingly ratified Kyoto back in 2004, serving as the crucial final signatory needed to put the treaty into effect. But since then it's focused on nothing but often dirty and inefficient means of expanding its economy. Just last month, in what many interpreted as a thumb in the eye of the UN process, it announced a "climate plan" that would increase its greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020.

The reason Russia, a Kyoto signatory, can grow its emissions so heedlessly is that emission baselines for the UN process were set at 1990 levels. Of course in 1992 Russia's economy cratered, and with it the country's emissions. The damage was so great that the economy would need to grow substantially to meet a target of 10-15% below 1990 levels by 2020 -- and that's what it plans to do.

Most observers expected Obama to focus exclusively on arms control and the financial crisis when he goes to Russia, since progress on climate seems so hopeless. But as The Guardian reports, the administration fully intends to forge a deal on joint climate action. It's been pulling its ideas from a new report from the Center on American Progress.

The goal is to coax Russia into accepting strong sticks (mandatory targets at the Copenhagen talks) by offering it carrots. One is help entering carbon trading markets. The country is thought to be sitting on some 1.9 billion euros worth of carbon credits -- one of the main reasons it signed Kyoto -- but the government does not have the capacity or infrastructure to monitor emissions and approve projects. The U.S. could help with that, since it has considerable experience with such markets.

The other carrot is efficiency. Russia's energy intensity -- energy use per unit of GDP -- is twice America's, and the highest among the world's high energy consuming countries. Targeted exchange of efficiency technology and know-how could not only bend Russia's emissions curve but make its economy more productive. It's a win-win, but again, the government needs help. (Interestingly, Russia just announced that it will ban some incandescent lights by 2011.)

No big U.S.-Russia agreements on climate are expected this week, but Monday saw the introduction of a working group on energy, formed as part of a high-level bilateral commission created out of the summit. Steven Chu will chair the group on the US side.

G8 + MEF

The MEF is a smaller group of countries than the full UNFCCC, but it's still large and diverse, and there are enormous challenges in the way of getting a substantive agreement this week. Here are a few:

China + India

The overwhelming short-term priorities for developing countries are poverty reduction and economic development, driven in part by coal-based power. That's why China and India have both recently signaled that they will not commit to any binding GHG reduction targets. No, seriously, they won't. Says Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh, “India will not accept any emissions targets -- period. It is the bottom line; a non-negotiable stand. This is not something that India is going to budge on, under any circumstances." OK then!

Both countries (India; China) have also recently expressed ostentatious outrage about the possibility that the United States will impose "carbon tariffs" on imported goods. (A border adjustment provision was inserted in the Waxman-Markey bill before it passed the House.) Developing countries warn of an incipient trade war. Of course, as John Kemp points out, the provisions in the bill are not actually carbon tariffs but "carefully structured as import permits specifically to ensure they are consistent with World Trade Organisation rules." And sure enough, the WTO has signaled that the import permits are legal. China and India fear them.

Obama has spoken publicly against the border adjustments, but as Brad Plumer notes, it's helpful to have that stick in hand to make the carrots look better. (Todd Stern didn't have it when he went to China early last month.)

Of course China is hardly sitting on its hands. It's green stimulus package was both larger and greener than America's. Just this month it boosted its renewable energy targets to 15% by 2020. It looks set to swamp the U.S. in both wind and solar investment this year; between now and 2020, it's expected to spend more on renewables and nuclear than on oil and coal.

The central government has established the State Council's Expert Panel on Climate Change Policy to work on energy development plans that will involve trillions in investment. "Roughly, we need to spend an extra 1 trillion yuan every year to raise energy efficiency," said panel member Bai Quan. Just as importantly, maybe more so, it announced that regional government officials will be judged by reductions in carbon intensity instead of purely by economic growth. Getting career bureaucrats on board is essential to making sure the central planners' schemes become reality. The green shift is dispersing into rural areas as well.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke will head to China later this month to talk turkey. Says Chu, "It's in our interest and China's to explore ways to cooperate for our mutual benefit--by promoting renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency and cutting pollution." Chu's assistant secretary David Sandalow is hosting a high-level discussion on engaging China on CCS this Thursday in D.C.; a second, focused on finance and political barriers, will happen soon thereafter.

You can imagine Chu announcing a splashy post-combustion CCS development project, or an investment in solar thermal projects, in exchange for back-channel agreements on a timeline for the country to accept hard emission reductions targets (and back off on border adjustment fussing).

What's next

Japan and Brazil are among the other countries with which Obama may pursue bilateral deals, possibly before Copenhagen. The big sticking point with Brazil is avoided deforestation. They don't want it paid for via carbon credits, through the Reduced Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) program -- they want it paid for with cold hard cash (so old-fashioned!). So far, no one except Norway is biting.

If all goes well -- an enormous if, of course -- the U.S. negotiating team arrive at Copenhagen with a web of bi- and multi-lateral side deals on clean energy technology sharing, adaptation research, development assistance, trade deals, and more. The world's biggest polluters will arrive with agreements in hand. Developing countries will see signs of real movement on the part of developed nations and soften their rigid opposition to targets.

And out of it all will come a stronger, more robust climate treaty, scaffolded by the self-interest of the many countries invested in side deals premised on continued international action.

That's the hope anyway. Needless to say: domestic achievements notwithstanding, if Obama can pull it off he'll be assured of a place in history.

Related Links:

You don’t have to be big to go green

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

At home he is almost universally seen as a politician running out of time, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to stride onto the international stage as if he were guaranteed many more years in power. He may have lost his rapport with the British public, chalked up blunder after blunder, and already faced two attempted coups by fellow Labourites in Parliament, but he continues to try to "save the world."

Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown talk Monday during a pre-G8 summit in Evian, France. Both leaders support a new international accord on greenhouse gases, but Brown has gone further than other G8 leaders, advocating that rich nations spend billions to support climate adaptation and clean energy programs in poor countries.Courtesy Elysee.frWe know that is what Brown thinks he's doing, because he used that very phrase when under pressure recently in the House of Commons. In Britain's rather puerile political discourse, this was enough to condemn him to instant and recurrent mockery. But there is every sign that this somewhat serious son of a Church of Scotland minister really believes it.

Brown made the boast in a reference to his attempts to lead the global response to the international financial crisis. And it is true that, whatever his role in helping to cause the credit meltdown in the first place, he did react decisively. Now he is extending his self-imposed mission to combatting global warming, launching a campaign that he somewhat immodestly says "will effectively change the world."

Brown claimed this when answering questions after a speech on climate change he made recently in the unlikely surroundings of London Zoo. The speech received almost no media attention because he had the misfortune to deliver it on the morning after the death of Michael Jackson. But it did contain an important proposal, deliberately put on the table in time for this week's climate gathering in Italy, with just might break the deadlock in the international negotiations leading up to December's vital climate conference in Copenhagen.

The talks are deadlocked because, even though time is rapidly ticking away, no one has been prepared to make the first significant move. Emissions cuts so far offered by rich nations amount in total to a reduction of about 8 to 14 percent in 1990 levels by 2020, a third of the 25-40 percent they agreed to make in principle 18 months ago in Bali.

Developing countries, for their part, are refusing to make pledges on reducing the rate of growth of their emissions -- an essential part of any deal -- because industrialized nations are neither doing enough at home nor offering funds to help them fight, and adapt to, climate change. Serious money was promised, and the EU undertook to specify what it should be by last spring. But EU finance ministers have so far refused to name a sum, fearing that they will just be asked for more.

The result has not just ensured that the already sclerotic UN negotiations made no real progress, but blighted President Obama's attempt to inject some energy into the process through this week's meeting, held alongside the annual G8 summit. So Gordon Brown's proposal, which was discussed and agreed in depth in his cabinet, was both targeted and timed to try to break the impasse.

Brown suggested a financial package to be worth around $100 billion a year by 2020 for funding low carbon technologies to reduce emissions, strategies to prevent deforestation, and adaptation measures in developing countries. He proposed that the money should be raised from an expanded and reformed carbon market, a limited amount of official overseas aid, and new mechanisms which could include funds from reducing emissions from aviation and shipping.

And he did not stop there. Over the next week he rang both Obama and Wen Jiabao of China to canvass their support, and is working his way around most of the other leaders at the summit before they actually meet. He does not expect agreement on the idea in Italy, but hopes that governments will work on it over the next two months in time for the next climate summit, called by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in New York in September.

Brown made a bold move, for it meant breaking ranks with the rest of the industrialized world, and defying countries like France that had explicitly pressed him not to do so. And no one knows if it will work, though there has been some public support on Denmark (host of the the December meeting) and the vulnerable, low-lying countries of Bangladesh and the Maldives.

But something is desperately needed to provide a focus for serious, specific negotiations to begin as Copenhagen comes ever closer. And experience shows that there is rarely a breakthrough unless one leader and his or her government shows enough commitment to drive it.

If Gordon Brown can provide it -- and follows through until agreement on a new treaty is finally reached -- history will regard him much better than do today's commentators. And it may even judge that he did, indeed, "save the world."

--

Below, watch Brown's speech laying out his "road to Copenhagen" proposal:

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

In the midst of the fight of our lives (the House floor debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act), a coalition of major U.S. groups called for the Obama Administration to outline its "yardstick" on global warming. What is it that this "scientific and pragmatic" Administration will use to measure our efforts to solve global warming pollution -- its yardstick?

Well the CEOs of 47 U.S. organizations, representing environment, faith, development, and youth groups have an answer. As the letter from these groups to the Obama Administration says:

"We are writing to urge you to work with other world leaders at the upcoming G8 Summit to set a strong science-based goal for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases aimed at keeping the increase of global average surface temperature, compared to pre-industrial levels, as far below 2 degrees Celsius/3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as possible."

The "two degrees" threshold is a pretty important yardstick. The impacts of global warming will be potentially severe in a number of regions around the world, including the US, if we cross this threshold.

And it isn't like these groups made up this "yardstick". After all, it is the goal called for in the:

Having a clear measure against which to judge progress will be central to ensuring that the American public continues to be bought into solving global warming. After all, the American people generally have a "can do" attitude. Once we fully get to grips with the problem, we want to solve it -- not half way, but all the way.

So that is why having such an overarching "yardstick" as holding global temperatures to below a certain threshold is so critical -- it frames why we are working to solve global warming. It will frame how we judge whether or not we are heading in the right direction or whether we need to do more.

Where President Obama stands on "two degrees" will be a consistent question when he attends the Group of Eight (G8) meeting in early July. Ambiguity breeds mistrust and on global warming the U.S. has had a lot of goodwill destroyed over the last 8 years -- thanks to the efforts of the "unnamed Administration". The Obama Administration and now the House of Representatives have made serious efforts to rebuild international trust on global warming. But not providing clarity on "two degrees" spurs mistrust as evidenced in a recent Reuters story about the Obama Administration not wanting to reference the 2 degrees Celsius objective in the G8 statement.

So the letter from these 47 groups to President Obama as he is just about to embark on his G8 trip provides a simple recommendation -- embrace 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degress Fahrenheit) as the U.S. yardstick on global warming. Don't be separate from it any longer. Taking it as your own will help spur the U.S. public to action and build a huge amount international goodwill.

Coming out in support of this "yardstick" is a small, but hugely important signal to the American people and the world that we are truly committed to solving global warming.

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Prelude to COP15: Climate justice actions sweep the U.S. before Copenhagen talks

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Think of Nicolas Sarkozy, and what springs to mind? Carla Bruni, of course. His platform heels, probably. A somewhat aggressive manner, naturellement. Napoleon Bonaparte, pourquoi non?

Al Gore attended the October 2007 unveiling of the Sarkozy government's green program, called "Grenelle de l'Environnment."Courtesy Elysee.frIndeed the French president is often compared to the diminutive emperor with the bellicose mindset, ambition to restore French glory, and glamorous and famous wife. But there's a difference. To Bonaparte, green was just one of the shades that best suited Josephine. To Sarkozy, unexpectedly but increasingly, it is making his policies sage, in both senses of the word.

Immediately after taking office almost exactly two years ago, "Sarko" -- until then best known as France's notably conservative, not to say divisive, interior minister -- announced, to almost universal surprise, that combating climate change would be one of his top priorities as president.

He was as good as his word, going straight into action at the G8 summit in Germany just a few weeks later. He joined the host, Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Britain's then-Prime Minister Tony Blair in mounting a three-pronged attack on George W. Bush to get him to shift ground before vital negotiations in Bali the following winter.

Merkel went in for the first assault, softening him up over lunch before handing over to the French and British leaders. They discussed tactics while traveling to dinner together at a nearby castle and then jointly nobbled the American president. Blair then returned to the theme with him over breakfast the next morning.

By the end, Bush had agreed that negotiations should proceed through the United Nations, to reach agreement by the end of this year (clearing the way for December's all-important meeting in Copenhagen). And Bush accepted a vague reference to halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

And that was just the start of Sarkozy's greening. Little noticed in the world outside, he has instituted the western world's most thoroughgoing green program in a country hitherto little known for taking environmental leadership.

It is known as the "Grenelle de l'Environnment" (I'm afraid I have to resist the childish temptation to call it the "Grenouille de l'Environnment"), in a reference to meetings in Paris' Rue de Grenelle that marked the turning point in the riots of 1968. Fulfilling a campaign promise, Sarkozy brought together the government, green groups, local authorities, business and trade unions to work out a sustainable development strategy for the next 10 to 15 years.

After months of talks the participants produced an extraordinary 268 recommendations, many of which have already become law. They aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions fourfold by 2050 -- and perhaps more importantly introduce tough short-term targets such as cutting carbon dioxide emissions from transport by 2020, while doubling the use of renewable energy.

More than 2,000 kilometers of new high-speed railway lines are to be built, along with 1,500 kilometers of new public transport routes in towns and cities. And the government has set out to persuade people to buy low emission cars, introducing a bonus for purchasing them, and a tax (inevitably called a "malus") on polluting ones. "Just one year on," Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo reports in the forthcoming issue of UNEP's magazine Our Planet, "the French automotive market is changing shape. The average emissions of new vehicles sold in France have fallen by nine grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre in a single year, six times the previous rate of progress."

At least one new solar power station is to be built in each region by 2011; by contrast, only two new nuclear power plants will be completed by 2017, despite France's history as the world's chief champion of the atom. By 2020 national capacities for geothermal energy will have been increased sixfold, for wind energy ten fold, and for solar photovoltaic energy 400 times over.

From next year all new government structures must have low energy consumption, followed by all new buildings in 2012. "Positive energy buildings," producing more energy than they consume, will be introduced from 2020. And 400,000 existing homes are to be retrofitted to make them energy efficient each year.

The program is not solely concerned with the climate; it seeks, for example, to triple the share of organic farming in France by 2010 and halve the use of pesticides. But it is its effect on global warming that has cause Al Gore to call for "a global Grenelle."

That also remains Sarkozy's main concern.

"Doing nothing would be no less than criminal for our planet," he says. "Doing nothing means accepting a point of no return, to be reached as soon as the average global warming tops two degrees. A decision has to be taken now, at once."

Napoleon, famed for his impatience, could not have put it more urgently.

Related Links:

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

G8 officials don't want Silvio Berlusconi to play a leading role in any climate talks that may occur this summer during the July summit in Italy. (Photo Livio Anticoli, Courtesy Prime Minister of Italy's Office)

Barack Obama has a problem, one he shares with Gordon Brown. And, for that matter, with Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Stephen Harper, and even Lula da Silva.

The problem these A-list world leaders are dealing with is bald, perma-tanned, and once worked as a cruise ship crooner. Oh yes, and he just happens to be prime minister of Italy, one of the most colorful (and that's not just his tan) and controversial figures ever to have lead a major western country.

A media tycoon and one of Italy's richest men, Silvio Berlusconi has a knack for hitting the headlines, most recently for appointing Mara Carafagna -- a former topless model who celebrates Sarah Palin as one of her political heroes -- as his spokeswoman. And he has a talent, too, for giving rise to embarrassment.

Last summer, in an infamous incident, the red face belonged to George W. Bush, whose staff had to apologize for "an unfortunate mistake" after they issued a press kit for the G8 summit that described the Italian premier as "one of the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice."

Berlusconi, it went on, "was hated by many, but respected by all at least for his personal style" and was "regarded by many as a political dilettante who gained his high office only through use of his considerable influence on the national media." And all this just a month after Bush had warmly hailed Berlusconi as "a good friend."

But to get to the point, the Italian leader poses a threat to President Obama's latest attempt to galvanize the glacially slow international negotiations on a new climate treaty, which is the topic for an ongoing international gathering in Bonn. At Obama's suggestion, the leaders of the world's 16 most important economies - both developed and developing - are to hold a special summit designed to inject high level political will into the process.

The question was where and when they could meet soon enough to have an early enough impact on the talks leading up to the make-or-break negotiating session in Copenhagen this December. The obvious answer was to meet immediately before or after July's G8 summit, when most of them would be together anyway, either as leaders of the eight major industrialized economies that meet each year or as the heads of the big developing countries that have recently been regularly invited to join them.

The venue of the meeting rotates each year around the G8 countries. This summer it is to be held on a rocky granite island renowned for its beaches -- La Maddalena off of Sardinia. Which means, as you will have guessed, that the summit will be held in Italy and that Mr Berlusconi, as host, would normally chair it.

The trouble is that the irrepressible Italian leader seems to be far from keen on urgently combatting climate change. Five years ago, during an earlier spell as premier, he failed altogether to turn up to a meeting of European environment ministers in Milan to make a crucial speech backing the Kyoto Protocol. And since the outbreak of the financial crisis this autumn, he has led attempts to persuade the European Union countries to water down measures to tackle global warming. In December he told journalists that it was "absurd to speak of emissions when there is a crisis going on", adding: "It's like someone with pneumonia thinking about having a perm."

He is, admittedly, not alone. Coal-dependent Poland's premier, Donald Tusk, has joined Berlusconi in trying to obstruct European action ("We think that the simplistic 'polluter pays' principle is unacceptable," he says.) And the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, is an out and out global warming naysayer, telling a conference of 600 climate change 'deniers' in Washington last month that those advocating action want "to stop economic growth and return mankind several centuries back."

But Berlusconi is a much bigger fish than either and so could step into the chief climate villain spot -- a position only recently vacated by Bush. All this means that his fellow G8 leaders do not want him in charge for any climate negotiations that occur at La Maddalena this summer. "He will be the host of the meeting, but not the chair," one well-placed source tells me. But they have yet to decide who will take his place.

The G8 countries need to sort it out soon. The meeting will be all the more important because the leaders attending the G20 meeting in London this week will do no more than issue warm words on the need for a climate deal in Copenhagen and to build a low carbon economy. They will instead address the struggling global economy and leave the real talking on climate to La Maddalena -- but not, it is to be hoped, to Mr. Berlusconi.

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

Related Links:

Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Fair, ambitious & binding: Essentials for a successful climate deal

Related Links:

Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Fair, ambitious & binding: Essentials for a successful climate deal

Related Links:

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

At this year's Group of Eight meeting in Japan, the world's richest nations more or less agreed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 50 percent by 2050. While the agreement is notable since it means President Bush has budged ever-so-slightly on the climate issue, the group's statement on the cuts is little more than a carefully worded pledge to keep negotiating. At last year's G8 meeting in Germany, countries agreed to "consider" cutting their emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; this year, the G8's joint statement said the nations would "consider and adopt" a goal of 50 percent cuts through the United Nations climate treaty process. However, the baseline year for emission cuts has apparently been changed from 1990 levels to today's, meaning the cuts would be much smaller overall. Also, the pledge is conditional on other nations like China and India agreeing to similar cuts, which gives the G8 nations even more wiggle room. One of environmentalists' biggest contentions with the G8 statement is that no short-term goals were set.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

A G8-backed goal to halve greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 would take a global clean-technology investment of merely $45 trillion, the International Energy Agency said in a report Friday. That's about 1.1 percent of the world's average annual gross domestic product through 2050; more overwhelmingly, it's also about three times the size of the current U.S. economy. To meet the 50-percent-by-2050 target, the world must build some 1,400 nuclear power plants by 2050; erect 17,500 wind turbines per year; and fit more than 50 coal- and gas-fired power plants per year with technology to capture and store carbon, says the IEA. Under current policies, warns the report, global CO2 emissions will rise 130 percent and oil demand 70 percent by 2050. It all "represents a formidable challenge," says IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka, "and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale." So hop to it.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity