Getting Serious About Climate Change

Op-Ed Contributor - Getting Serious About Climate Change - NYTimes.com

Article Tools Sponsored By
By PAUL HOHNEN and JEREMY LEGGETT
Published: July 12, 2009

Climate “policy as usual” is not working. In the 20 years since serious global discussions on climate change have been underway, atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and average temperatures have continued to rise.

During the 1990s, the talk was mostly about the need to prevent climate change. Now, adapting to climate change is given equal or greater priority. This shift of focus is an admission of failure.

To save the environment we will need unprecedented action — and a great deal of luck. But the change we need is nowhere in sight. Having participated in U.N. negotiations and countless climate conferences in recent decades, we confess to a dreadful sense of déjà vu as we approach the December 2009 Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

There will be fresh scientific warnings and calls for collective responsibility and urgent action. A few climate skeptics will get more than their share of media attention, but they will not dent the underlying science.

The business sector will highlight its ability to deliver emission-reducing technologies while at the same time urging pragmatism on the inevitability of burning more coal.

Nongovernmental organizations will hang we-told-you-so banners from the moral high ground.

When it gets down to the hard negotiations, however, the discussions will result in 11th hour lowest-common-denominator compromises. The overall effect will be to weaken almost every nation’s commitments to action.

In terms of what is needed to peak greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and then reduce them by at least 50 percent (relative to 1990 levels) by 2050, the dirty little secret is that not even the most ambitious agreement will meet this goal.

If this assessment is correct, there is a need for a major rethink on how the global community approaches the issue. While no one has all the answers, here’s a set of suggestions:

It’s defense of the planet, stupid. The Copenhagen meeting is not just another diplomatic talkfest. It must be seen as a global security conference about the survival of life on earth as we know it. It would help negotiators get a sense of the stakes if they likened the challenge to that of stopping the impact of an incoming asteroid or deterring an alien invasion. Collective urgent action, in which all players compete to contribute and recognize there are no winners, is required.