Copenhagen

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is less than 50 days away. The success or failure of this meeting is likely to have a large historical impact. A strong international agreement on emissions reduction is necessary, but not sufficient, to avert the most serious consequences of global warming. A strong accord, with real teeth, can give us a good starting point for further agreements down the road, and can begin to start real global reductions in CO2 emissions (not just a reduction in their growth.) If, however, no strong agreement is reached, or if the talks completely collapse, runaway climate change would seem inevitable.

One of the main difficulties is that climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than scientists had thought possible even a few years ago, and they have had to update their models. This means that many of the initial target goals considered in the negotiations are out of date, and no longer adequate. A new german study has attempted to definite more accurate targets, based on the latest scientific data. The study says that the US must now completely eliminate emissions (zero carbon) by 2020, other European countries must do so by 2025-2030, and China must achieve this by 2035.

These new numbers are shocking because they sound virtually impossible to achieve. It is difficult to imagine any politicians agreeing to a plan to reduce carbon emissions to zero in only 10 years. Currently the US is only proposing reducing emissions by 4 percent (from 1990 levels) and this has yet to be approved by legislators. It is likely that a bill will be passed, but the target levels contained within the legislation simply aren't good enough.

It is obvious that there won't be a agreement at Copenhagen that involves any of the radical numbers that now appear necessary. That doesn't mean it must be a failure, however. Over 20 years ago, there was a fight against Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) after scientists learned it was one of the major causes of a growing hole in the Ozone layer. In 1985, there was a critical meeting of 22 nations in Vienna.

The Vienna Conference let to a signed document called the Vienna Convention. This agreement did not set the targets that were required to reduce or eliminate ozone depletion, nor did it put in place the necessary legislative controls. However, the signatories did reach agreement that these things were necessary, and needed to be implemented. It also established a framework for future agreements that would allow these things to be put in place. This led two years later to the Montreal Protocol. In 1987, 24 nations signed an agreement that set real targets, controls and monitoring, and obligated the signatories to fulfill their commitments.

The Montreal Protocol (which was have been updated and revised several times since 1987) is today widely viewed as a great success in international cooperation. If all nations continue to adhere to the Protocol, it is expected that the Ozone layer will fully recover by 2050. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations described it this way:

Perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol.

The Vienna Convention was as as important to addressing ozone depletion as Copenhagen is to addressing global warming. We cannot expect it to result in the establishment of the tough targets that we really need. However, there is hope that it can begin a process that will lead to hard limits, and real enforcement power. We have already waited too long, and cannot afford to wait much longer. Some might argue that it was Kyoto that should have filled the role of the Vienna Convention. It certainly would have been much easier to address the problem if we had started then. We cannot go back in time, but we can learn the dangers of complacency.

As soon as Copenhagen is concluded, we need to move quickly towards a stronger agreement, hopefully a year later. For now, though, the focus must remain on the upcoming conference, and ensuring that our leaders take the absolute strongest position possible. I will make no predictions here, other than the obvious one: If Copenhagen is a failure, our last, best hope of preventing the worst consequences of global warming will be lost.