The Climate Challenge after Copenhagen

‘If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change’

From THE LEOPARD Guiseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

The two key challenges with respect to the global environment are to ensure a sustainable energy supply while avoiding climate change and to ensure food security without biodiversity loss.

If we continue with business as usual we may face an increase in global mean temperatures by 4 degrees C by 2100 and a further worldwide loss of biodiversity of 15% by 2050.
The ambition to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system did not result in a significant deal at Copenhagen and so far the global response to dealing with climate change and biodiversity loss has been inadequate.
There have been numerous studies and reports informing us that our society will face enormous problems if the global trends in climate change and biodiversity loss continue.
However, a critical question remains unanswered i.e. is a sustainable future politically feasible?
We know the problem i.e. our footprint on the planet has reached a level that could lead to environmental catastrophe.
We have options for a solution(s) and we have to a large degree the technology and know- how.
A low carbon economy and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity can be achieved with currently identifiable technologies and at moderate economic costs without threatening human (sustainable) development.
The most difficult aspect of the challenge is to decide politically on a joint/global commitment to a sustainable future and to agree on subsequent concrete measures to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss.
It appears unlikely that the UNFCCC process will deliver an agreement that will prove capable of solving the climate change problem which is an integral component of the multiple crisis humanity is facing.
The emissions reductions needed to achieve a 2 degree target will only be reached if large emission reductions take place in all major emitting countries including the big emerging economies. Given the large differences between countries in per-capita emissions, ability and or willingness to reduce emissions, different levels of development, lack of trust/transparency between countries, and different interpretations of equity it will be extremely difficulty to reach agreement on the allocation of emission reductions to different countries of the world.
The outcome of COP 15 in Copenhagen has inter alia highlighted the need to look at new proposals that may help countries and the global community make the transformation(s) necessary to deal with not only the climate crisis but also the wider bio-crisis. Key to dealing with this crisis will be to ensure that the appropriate institutional and political conditions are in place to implement climate solutions.
FEASTA and IDEA in collaboration with others have proposed that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) undertake a review/technical assessment of an array of alternative approaches to tackle the climate issue.
There are currently a number of global approaches to both financing a future agreement and to promoting a movement towards lower carbon emission development globally for example, Cap & Share, Cap & Dividend, Kyoto, Contraction & Convergence Greenhouse Development Rights, Reduce and Invest, An Upstream Carbon Tax, and Climate Solutions.
Such proposals should be reviewed for their technical merits and their potential to provide the basis for a global climate solution. If found to be promising, information on them should be made available to countries to use to arrive at a climate agreement. The legislative mandate for these approaches is contained in The UNFCCC and its Kyoto protocol.

The Criteria for eligibility for technical assessment could inter alia include the following:
1. A proposal should contribute substantially to achieve climate stabilization.
2. It should make a contribution to climate stabilization even when there is no binding reduction targets internationally agreed.
3. Its effect should be determinable.
4. It should be adjustable to changing conditions and targets.
5. It should be effective, simple to administer and transparent.
6. It should attract public support throughout the world.

UNEP has indicated that it is willing to undertake this assessment if it receives a request from a number of governments. The proposal for a the assessment has been discussed with many high ranking officials including Ban Ki Moon’s Climate Change Support Team Director, Janos Pasztor, The Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, The Executive Director of UNEP, Achim Steiner, and the EU Director of Climate Change and Air Quality, Artur Runge- Metzger Furthermore, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. John Gormley, T.D, other European Ministers of the Environment and high ranking members of government delegations to UNFCCC meetings have been briefed on the proposal. The response has been positive and although progress has been slow, we are now hopeful, that a number of governments will back this proposal. Critical to this effort is support from the Irish Government. ₍₁₎

₍₁₎ John Gormley,T.D has written to Achim Steiner in support of the initiative.

Feargal Duff
April 2010

The Climate Challenge – Some thoughts after Copenhagen