The EDF has a “what to expect” post up about Copenhagen, Copenhagen Opens: What We Expect, and I think it very neatly summarizes what we should be hoping for:

First we need to reduce emissions far enough and fast enough to keep warming below 2°C. An effective treaty must ensure carbon emissions decline across the globe, and that means we need a plan for all major emitters to implement pollution caps so global carbon emissions start declining during the next decade. Developed countries need to impose caps as soon as possible and major developing countries need to phase in caps in the near future, the sooner the better.

Second we need to know whether we’re winning or losing the fight against climate change. That means we need a verification system everyone can believe in — a standardized and credible system for measuring, reporting, and verifying national emissions using a common and meaningful yardstick. All countries must measure their pollution reductions, report them in a way that allows “apples to apples” comparisons, and submit them for independent substantiation. Countries need to be held accountable for compliance.

Third, we need to establish paths for emerging economies to join the effort. Any climate change treaty must provide ways for emerging economies to enter carbon markets to speed their transition to low-carbon economic growth. Different nations will require different timelines for reducing their emissions under a new treaty. And one of these paths must be the creation of incentives to reduce tropical deforestation and forest degradation.

And fourth, we need significant and sustainable financing and, since the bulk of international climate finance will flow through the private sector, it’s crucial that carbon markets work. If no one knows what they’re buying or selling, markets for emissions reduction credits won’t work, and funding for developing countries will suffer.

My take on these, point by point:

First: No real comment here, except to say it’s pretty obvious that achieving anything less than this when Copenhagen plus whatever follow-on meetings/process happen, would be a monumental fail.

Second: MRV–measuring, reporting, verifying–is indeed critical. I’ve long been on record here saying that this is where I think we’ll have a gigantic problem. I imagine the following scenario taking place: It’s 2020, and scientists measure atmospheric CO2 and get a much higher value than can be accounted for by the claimed emissions for the prior few years. What does the US do (not that I’m implying the US will be the worldwide Enviro Cop administering the process)? Do we say that the emissions claims “must” be right, so the science is flawed and there must be some Other Mechanism producing CO2, which will kick off a lot of needless work to try to find out if the permafrost bomb is going off? Or do we admit that, well, you see, we were cheating on our numbers, but just a little, and other countries must be cheating on theirs, so who wants to fess up? Or do we reveal that we can monitor the activities in other countries much more accurately than most people realize–satellites are good for more than taking Google photos of your neighbor’s back yard–and we know for a fact that China is cheating by X million metric tons, India is cheating by Y, Indonesia is cheating by Z, and so on? Perhaps we could try to ignore the problem, and hope that none of the Internet number crunchers will be able to gather enough data to figure out there’s a gap between claimed adherence to an agreement and reality?

I know this sounds like the plot of a really bad science fiction/thriller story, but I’m convinced we’re on a collision course with some variant of this issue. I hope I’m wrong, and everyone, for once, decides to play nice, but that’s not how I’d bet my lunch money right now.

Third: Yes on all emissions from developing countries and an enthusiastic yes on forest management.

Fourth: Yes again. This ties in to the first point–we have to be able to believe the data traders are relying on, and not replicate the ludicrous situation we have currently with oil reserves–but also includes the construction and maintenance of a working market.


Visit Lou's Graphs Page.

TCOE is on Twitter, too


Link to original post