Two decades on and 16 United Nations climate change conferences later, efforts to build global agreement on how to tackle climate change are going backwards. The Kyoto Protocol, the only meager action agreed after years of negotiation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, is all but dead. Unless governments wake up to the cause of the failure, things will continue to go backwards.

The problem is simple. While poverty and hunger persist, the key building block for improving the environment—prosperity—cannot be laid. Activists overlook a very basic point—not only that it costs money to protect the environment, but perpetuation of poverty and hunger are the biggest threat to it.

People do not inherently want to destroy their own surroundings. But who among us would not cut firewood if we had no other way of keeping our family warm? Who would not clear land to grow food to feed our hungry children or give them a chance at a better life?

In fact, researchers at the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report that collecting firewood and clearing land to erect homes and plant food are the primary drivers of deforestation in developing countries.

In light of these realities, it’s little surprise the now deceased Kenyan Nobel Peace prize winner, Wangari Maathai, considered the key to stopping deforestation was ending poverty.

Yet, far from recognizing this reality, many NGOs are lobbying negotiators at the U.N. climate talks to adopt measures which would further retard economic development in poor countries and exacerbate the very problem they aspire to address.

They continue to insist developing countries make deep cuts in emissions. Yet most development economists point out that this would retard their capacity to build the economic strength developing needs to meet the cost of reducing emissions.

Environmentalists need to heed this and propose climate change measures will also increase growth and reduce poverty. They exist.

Consider sustainable forestry. It’s not an oxymoron. In fact, expansion of forest ‘carbon sinks’ was described in UN research as one of the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions. Widely-respected Wired magazine featured this strategy in its 2008 “Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green” series:

Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.

A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees, convert them into carbon stores in timber products and paper, and plant new ones. Lots of them. … It won’t make a glossy photo for the Sierra Club’s annual report, but it will take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.

Instead environmentalists have demonized forestry and plantation industries, such as for palm oil and paper production, in poor countries. They contend they are a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in tropical developing countries. Recent research, funded by the World Bank, shows that is not true.

Restricting development of those industries only compounds the economic problems of poor countries. A global strategy to manage climate change can be developed, but it has to recognize the economic interests of all economies and assist poor countries to eradicate poverty.

The everyday disruptive experiences of millions of farmers, foresters, and citizens around the world shows the need for urgent action in Durban by the world’s political leaders. The findings of thousands of scientists show the need for urgent action in Durban by the world’s political leaders.

To focus on one specific element of these negotiations, and what has already begun grabbing the headlines from Durban, is the question of what is to be done about the Kyoto Protocol and whether it will live on past its current 2012 expiration date.

When it was negotiated in 1997, Kyoto represented a pioneering effort to assign responsibilities and establish cost-effective mechanisms for corralling global emissions of greenhouse gases – the gases that are radically changing the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. It remains the only legally-binding global instrument in place to set targets for curbing carbon pollution, though these targets only apply to developed countries. Kyoto’s adoption of market mechanisms – like emissions trading – was effectively an attempt to put state-of-the-art environmental economics into practice at the global level.

However, with the withdrawal of the United States a decade ago, the treaty only includes about 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions. A debate has thus raged between many developing countries that insist that developed countries sign onto a second Kyoto period, and developed countries that seek movement toward a more inclusive framework. Japan, Russia and Canada have indicated they will not join a second period of Kyoto; Australia is on the fence at best. Pressure is thus focused on the European Union. If only the EU among developed countries goes forward into a second commitment period, however, Kyoto will shrink to less than 15 percent of emissions. Clearly, such a framework alone is not going to do enough to protect us from climate change.

Kyoto may have been ahead of its time in terms of an agreement that all developed countries were prepared to implement, but it does contain fundamental architectural elements that should be part of any future global agreement. These include:

* Emissions trading and other cost-effective “market mechanisms” that put a price on carbon and promote cooperation between countries.

* Inventory and carbon accounting systems that promote transparency and support the implementation mechanisms.

* Reporting systems on actions and emissions inventories

* Compliance systems that seek to ensure nations do what they commit to, and apply preventive measures to facilitate compliance

The extension of Kyoto would ensure that this architecture continues in an international legal framework. Yet even if that fails to happen in Durban, these elements must not only be preserved, but continue to be strengthened and refined through the negotiating process. Some of these elements are further enhanced in the Cancun Agreements that negotiators are fleshing out. In other words, Durban must continue to build the foundation for a stronger and broader agreement, and the Kyoto question is only a small component of that.

Kyoto, with its artificial split of action between developed and developing countries, was never intended to be a permanent paradigm, rather an important – and groundbreaking – early step in the world’s effort to devise effective responses. It has been evident for nearly a decade, at least since the U.S. withdrew from Kyoto in 2001, that the world would need to establish a more comprehensive framework than Kyoto did, one that includes all major emitters taking action.

The world looks very different in 2011 than it did two decades ago. Developing countries now emit most of the world’s greenhouse gases, and China, which overtook the U.S. as the largest emitter only in 2007, is seeing such soaring emissions growth that it may double U.S. output by the end of this decade. Furthermore, emerging developing economies have a far greater role on the international economic and political stage today. The bulk of historical responsibility still lies with the industrialized world, but the lines are blurring and there is a need for all to be acting.

Last year’s Cancun Agreement, and the Copenhagen Accord which preceded it in 2009, were notable because they cracked open the door to such broader frameworks. Governments have not yet found the political will to create a broader legally binding framework, but all major emitters – both developed and developing countries – have now pledged to act to reduce emissions. And some of the developing countries’ pledges, such as those of Brazil and Indonesia, are quite a significant and impressive departure from business-as-usual emissions trajectories. Support – financial, technological, and political – for such moves will be critical, and Durban must show progress in these areas, such as in the establishment of the Green Climate Fund. The multilateral spirit that was so crucial in the final stages of Cancun a year ago will again be essential in Durban.

(These comments were submitted by Rebecca Chacko, Senior Director of Climate Policy at Conservation International.)

“It always seems impossible, until it’s done”—this is the motto adopted by NGOs like my own here in Durban. It seems fitting, both for the circumstances we face and for the fact that it is a quote of national hero here in South Africa, Nelson Mandela.

Prospects may seem dim, but much is still possible before the conference ends late next week. A second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol is not dead-on-arrival and we haven’t given up yet. Developing countries are still working hard to secure legally-binding emissions reductions targets for developed countries that extend beyond 2012 and Europe has indicated its willingness to participate if the right conditions are met. That said, meaningful continuation of this environmental milestone is an uphill battle.

But more is needed than the Kyoto Protocol. Luckily, progress in other areas is also possible and even more likely. A mandate for a legally-binding agreement for ALL countries by 2015 is possible if countries engage with a mind to what is possible rather than what isn’t. A 2015 mandate (at the latest) would gear us up to meaningful action to address climate change just before the window of opportunity passes us by. A recent International Energy Agency report found that only five years remain to avoid levels of climate change that will be dangerous to humans and the ecosystems that support us. The clock is ticking and Durban can ensure that we pace ourselves to finish the race in time.

There is also room for concrete progress in Durban that can lead to immediate action. In this sense, Durban is an opportunity to breathe life into many aspects of the Cancun Agreements, which were established last year. Operationalizing the Green Climate Fund will establish the architecture necessary to provide developing countries with the support they need to do their part to help mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. That would be a big win here in Durban. Durban can also provide detailed decisions relating to a mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation, or REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries). Deforestation is the source of 16% of global emissions. Clarity on financing as well as common and rigorous rules will enable countries to implement REDD+ action in a way that ensures it will be a sound investment. And, with the impacts of climate change already being felt, people are struggling to adapt, especially the most vulnerable. Finalization of the Adaptation Committee can help provide the support these populations need to deal with climate impacts such as increased floods, droughts and storm damage.

Progress is all around us. Peru has committed to zero net emissions from deforestation by 2021 and created the National Program for Forest Conservation to Mitigation Climate Change last year to help it achieve that goal. Emissions from deforestation have already begun to drop in countries like Brazil. Many national governments are including the role of ecosystems in their national adaptation plans—the Philippines recently included measures to address vulnerabilities in its national policy. Several governments, such as the US, Norway, Germany and Japan are providing funding for adaptation, REDD+ and clean technology efforts in developing countries. California has approved a cap-and-trade program in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions across its economy. Australia recently passed legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions from its biggest polluters. China has adopted a five-year plan that includes binding targets to control emissions and green its GDP. Many corporations are showing leadership in reducing their own carbon footprint.

This progress means something, and every little bit helps. But it is not enough. Climate change is a global problem and it can’t be solved without global solutions. And that is why the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a mandate for comprehensive, legally-binding agreement is so critical. It is the only way we can limit the rise in average global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) – the level at which our best science warns we will experience catastrophic changes. So, we are left with no option but to make progress everywhere possible and as quickly as possible. And that includes continuing to engage in this process, because at the end of the day, there is no way to meet our goals but with participation of all countries, led by the UNFCCC.

Given the current global political and economic situations, renewal of the Kyoto Protocol is highly unlikely at this year’s Durban climate talks. But that is no excuse for the world to sit back and do nothing. We need to build on the efforts of individual countries and regions so that every nation does its part to reduce the emissions that are harming our way of life.

The United Nations climate talks – this year in Durban, next year in Qatar and beyond – should be used to push individual nations to commit to emissions reductions and to launch the fund for helping developing countries deal with climate change.

Although the ideal outcome of the gathering is for countries to extend the Kyoto Protocol climate change agreement – significant parts of which will expire next year – and to set the course for a comprehensive binding agreement by a date certain in the near future, those goals appear elusive.

However, we at Environmental Defense Fund are urging the climate conference to move forward in four key areas:

1. A negotiating work plan with concrete goals for the next two years and a clear path toward a comprehensive, binding agreement.
2. Agreements on financing arrangements for the Green Climate Fund, which will be dedicated to helping developing countries address and adapt to climate change.
3. Positive signals to the carbon market that there’s life after Durban, encouraging more countries to follow Europe, New Zealand, and most recently Australia’s lead in setting a domestic carbon price.
4. Accounting rules for measuring emissions from land-use change and forestry that accurately determine whether countries have reduced their emissions and met their obligations.

Progress on these four fronts will contribute greatly to curbing emissions and giving individual countries and regions the support they need to keep moving forward.

The predictions for global negotiators descending on Durban this week seem bleak, which doesn't bode well for a definitive world response on the world's most critical issue as time is running out. If this is the metaphorical “fork in the road” for multilateral efforts on climate change, we are all wondering if the global community will be able to meet even Yogi Berra's simple threshold for handling a fork in the road: "take it.” Yet despite the chronic pessimism that surrounds the process, I'm hopeful that country representatives will work diligently and transparently to come to agreement on a path forward to reduce emissions; one that incorporates mechanisms like the Green Fund and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to rapidly finance and bring to scale clean technology solutions like energy efficiency.

In an ideal world, the Durban negotiations would create a “Kyoto 2.0” that encompasses the concerns of both the developed and developing countries as part of a legally binding treaty. At a minimum, the outcome of COP17 must maintain and strengthen the mechanisms and incentives for climate action available under Kyoto. Countries must have the flexibility and financial motivation to go beyond the (possibly voluntary) compliance levels to achieve even greater reductions through market-based cooperation. In other words, we need to work on an agreement that requires reductions while concurrently pursuing ways to encourage countries to make significant clean energy investments that will power a new green economy.

We must remember that all global emissions reductions goals are met at the city level. Many cities are already capitalizing on the financial opportunities of reducing their carbon footprint by pursuing energy efficiency and green building programs. So any global framework should also work to unleashcity-level leadership and innovation through the use of city-wide, multi-sector CDMs, city-to-city emissions trading schemes, and beyond. This flexibility would enable cities to gain recognition and financing for their participation.

Two weeks of international climate negotiations begin today in Durban, South Africa. These are the Seventeenth Conference of the Parties (COP-17) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The key challenge at this point is to maintain the process of building a sound foundation for meaningful, long-term global action, not necessarily some notion of immediate, highly-visible triumph. In other words, the answer to the question of whether the Durban climate negotiations can succeed depends — not surprisingly — on how one defines “success.”

Let’s Place the Climate Negotiations in Perspective

Why do I say (repeatedly, year after year) that the best goal for the climate talks is to make progress on a sound foundation for meaningful, long-term global action, not some notion of immediate triumph? The reason is that the often-stated cliche about the American baseball season — that it’s a marathon, not a sprint — applies even more so to international climate change policy. Why?

First, the focus of scientists (and policy makers) should be on stabilizing concentrations at acceptable levels by 2050 and beyond, because it is the accumulated stock of greenhouse gas emissions — not the flow of emissions in any year — that are linked with climate consequences.

Second, the cost-effective path for stabilizing concentrations involves a gradual ramp-up in target severity, to avoid rendering large parts of the capital stock prematurely obsolete.

Third, massive technological change is the key to the needed transition from reliance on carbon-intensive fossil fuels to more climate-friendly energy sources. Long-term price signals (most likely from government policies) will be needed to inspire such technological change.

Fourth and finally, the creation of long-lasting international institutions is central to addressing this global challenge.

For all of these reasons, international climate negotiations will be an ongoing process, not a single task with a clear end-point. Indeed, we should not be surprised that they proceed much as international trade talks do, that is, with progress only over the long term, building institutions (the GATT, the WTO), yet moving forward in fits and starts, at times seeming to move backward, but with progress in the long term.

So, the bottom-line is that a sensible goal for the international negotiations in Durban is progress on a sound foundation for meaningful long-term action, not some notion of immediate “success.” This does not mean that there should be anything other than a sense of urgency associated with the work at hand, because it is important. But it does mean that we should keep our eyes on the prize.

How Can the Durban Negotiators Keep their Eyes on the Prize?

The keys to success — real, as opposed to symbolic success — in Durban depend upon four imperatives.

1. Embrace Parallel Processes

The UNFCCC process must embrace the parallel processes that are carrying out multilateral discussions (and in some cases, negotiations) on climate change policy: theMajor Economies Forum or MEF (a multilateral venue for discussions – but not negotiations – outside of the UNFCCC, initiated under a different name by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, and continued under a new name by the Obama administration, for the purpose of bringing together the most important emitting countries for candid and constructive discussion and debate); the G20 (periodic meetings of the finance ministers – and sometimes heads of government – of the twenty largest economies in the world); and various other multilateral and bilateral organizations and discussions.

The previous leadership of the UNFCCC seemed to view the MEF, the G20, and most other non-UNFCCC forums as competition – indeed, as a threat. Fortunately, the UNFCCC’s new leadership under Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres (appointed byUN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in May of 2010) has displayed a considerably more positive and pragmatic attitude toward these parallel processes. That’s a positive sign.

2. Consolidate Negotiation Tracks

There are now three major, parallel processes operative: first, the UNFCCC’s KP track(negotiating national targets for a possible second commitment period – post-2012 – for the Kyoto Protocol); second, the LCA track (the UNFCCC’s negotiation track for Long-term Cooperative Action, that is, a future international agreement of undefined nature); and third, the Cancun Agreements from COP-16 a year ago (based upon the Copenhagen Accord, negotiated and noted at COP-15 in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, 2009). Consolidating these three tracks into two tracks (or better yet, one track) would be another significant step forward.

The primary way for this to happen would be for the LCA negotiations to focus on the ongoing work of putting more meat on the bones of the Cancun Agreements, which — along with the Copenhagen Accord — marked an important step forward by blurring for the first time (although not eliminating) the unproductive and utterly obsolete distinction in the Kyoto Protocol between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. (Note that more than 50 non-Annex I countries have greater per capita income than the poorest of the Annex I countries.)

In particular, the UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” could be made meaningful through the dual principles that: all countries recognize their historic emissions (read, the industrialized world); and all countries are responsible for their future emissions (think of the rapidly-growing, large, emerging economies of China, India, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa).

As I’ve said before, this would represent a great leap beyond what has become the “QWERTY keyboard” (that is, unproductive path dependence) of international climate policy: the distinction in the Kyoto Protocol between the small set of Annex I countries with quantitative targets, and the majority of countries in the world with no responsibilities. A variety of policy architectures — including but not limited to the Cancun Agreements — could build on these dual principles and make them operational, beginning to bridge the massive political divide that exists between the industrialized and the developing world.

At the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements — a multi-national initiative with some 35 research projects in Australia, China, Europe, India, Japan, and the United States — we have developed a variety of architectural proposals that could make these dual principles operational. (See, for example: “Global Climate Policy Architecture and Political Feasibility: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets to Attain 460 PPM CO2 Concentrations” by Valentina Bosetti and Jeffrey Frankel; and “Three Key Elements of Post-2012 International Climate Policy Architecture” by Sheila M. Olmstead and Robert N. Stavins.)

3. Make Progress on Narrow, Focused Agreements

A third area of success at the Durban negotiations could be realized by some productive steps with specific, narrow agreements, such as on REDD+ (Reduced Deforestation and Forest Degradation, plus enhancement of forest carbon stocks). Other areas where talks are moving forward, although somewhat more slowly, are finance and technology, particularly in the context of adding meat to the bones of the Cancun Agreements.

4. Maintain Sensible Expectations

Finally, it is important to go into these annual negotiations with sensible expectations and thereby effective plans. As I said at the outset, negotiations in this domain are an ongoing process, not a single task with a clear end-point. The most sensible goal for Durban is progress on a sound foundation for meaningful long-term action, not some notion of immediate triumph. The key question is not what Durban accomplishes in the short-term, but whether it helps put the world in a better position five, ten, and twenty years from now in regard to an effective long-term path of action to address the threat of global climate change.

Wait, What About the Kyoto Protocol?

Those who follow these international negotiations closely — including my colleagues on the ground in Durban — are no doubt wondering why I haven’t said something about the 900-pound gorilla in the closet: the fact that the Kyoto Protocol’s first (and so far only) commitment period runs from 2008 through 2012, and so a decision needs to be reached on a possible second (post-2012) commitment period for the Protocol.

Yes, in addition to the LCA (Cancun) track, the Kyoto Protocol (KP) track of negotiations remains. A decision regarding a possible extension (and presumably an enhancement) of the Kyoto Protocol’s emission-reduction targets for the industrialized (Annex I) countries has been punted annually to the next set of negotiations — from Bali in 2007, to Poznan in 2008, to Copenhagen in 2009, to Cancun in 2010, and now to Durban in 2011. It can’t be delayed any longer, because the necessary process of ratification by individual nations would itself take at least a year to complete.

Keeping the Kyoto Protocol going (and with more stringent targets for the Annex I countries) is very important to the non-Annex I countries, sometimes referred to — inaccurately — as the developing countries. I don’t blame them. An approach that provides benefits (reduced climate damages, as well as financial transfers) for the non-Annex I countries without their incurring any costs is surely an attractive route for those nations.

Is a Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol Feasible?

Putting aside the possible merits of a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, we can ask simply whether it’s in the cards: is it feasible?

Japan, Russia, and Canada have formally announced that they will not take up targets in a second commitment period. Australia, despite its recent domestic climate policy action, seems unlikely to make a significant commitment. Is Europe (plus New Zealand) on its own credible or feasible? Maybe yes, maybe no.

The “yes” part of the answer comes from the fact that Europe has already committed itself to serious emissions reductions through the year 2020 under the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This will go forward — barring a change of heart by the EU — with or without a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. That said, Europe’s compliance costs under the EU ETS will be much less than otherwise if offsets continue to be made available from non-Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol’sClean Development Mechanism (CDM). This might suggest that the EU has a significant motivation to keep the Kyoto Protocol going.

But international law scholars — such as Professor Daniel Bodansky of Arizona State University‘s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law — maintain that the Kyoto Protocol (and its CDM) continues as an institution of law whether or not a second commitment period is put in place. Hence, it’s conceivable that the EU could have its cake and eat it too: an ongoing Kyoto Protocol without a second commitment period. And the political pressure on Brussels from the EU’s member states — and from European businesses — might make it difficult for the EU to sign up for a new series of commitments given the obvious absence in such an arrangement of the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and — of course — China and the other emerging economies.

A Forecast

This highly contentious issue of a possible second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol may come to dominate the talks in Durban. This would be unfortunate, because it would simultaneously reduce the likelihood of the negotiators making progress on a sound foundation for meaningful, long-term global action. It would probably also have the effect of producing some drama in the form of highly-charged debates, and possible threats by some delegations to walk out of the negotiations. For this reason, despite the weather, Durban may come to resemble Copenhagen more than Cancun.

Further Reading

The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements has pulled together an archive of relevant publications, which we call “The Durban Branch” of our climate library. We hope it will be helpful for those gathered in Durban or watching from afar.

Also, a number of previous essays I have written and posted at this blog will be of interest to those who wish to follow developments at the Seventeenth Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban. Here are links, in reverse chronological order:

Canada’s Step Away From the Kyoto Protocol Can Be a Constructive Step Forward

A Wave of the Future: International Linkage of National Climate Change Policies

Why Cancun Trumped Copenhagen

What Happened (and Why): An Assessment of the Cancun Agreements

Defining Success for Climate Negotiations in Cancun

Three Pillars of a New Climate Pact

Can Countries Cut Carbon Emissions Without Hurting Economic Growth?

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Defining Success for Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen

Only Private Sector Can Meet Finance Demands of Developing Countries

Chaos and Uncertainty in Copenhagen?

What Hath Copenhagen Wrought? A Preliminary Assessment of the Copenhagen Accord

Another Copenhagen Outcome: Serious Questions About the Best Institutional Path Forward

Opportunities and Ironies: Climate Policy in Tokyo, Seoul, Brussels, and Washington

Despite claims to the contrary, there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community—as reflected in the 2007 IPCC assessment and reaffirmed in the 2010 "America's Climate Choices" report from the National Academy of Sciences—that climate change is real and that humans are in all likelihood responsible. Certainly, there is debate on how best to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, but denying that it exists won’t make those impacts disappear.

Climate change will have a significant impact on America’s global competitiveness, national security, and public health and safety. The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that at least one third of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is weather and climate-sensitive, a potential impact of $4 trillion a year (in 2005 dollars), once adjusted for inflation. According to the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, models project that by 2050, Indianapolis will experience a heat wave each summer similar in magnitude to the 1995 Chicago heat wave that killed 739 people.

Based on a report from the Center for Integrative Environmental Research at the University of Maryland, during the driest years, decreased precipitation in California’s Central valley is estimated to result in economy-wide (agriculture, industry and households) loss of $6 billion a year. Similarly, a report on climate change and national security from the Council on Foreign Relations cited that Tampa Bay, the site of MacDill Air Force Base and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) – the center of strategic operations in Iraq – is extremely vulnerable to hurricane damage. A University of South Florida simulation found that the base would likely be inundated if the region were struck by a Category Three hurricane.

In the past several years, attacks on the integrity of climate scientists have been on the rise, including the rehashing of insinuations that have already been proven to be unfounded. Also, Congress recently barred the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from establishing a National Climate Service, which would have functioned as a streamlined resource for climate information, thus making it easier to find information such as seasonal growing outlooks and drought, or wildfire and flood forecasts. These actions won’t make climate change, its impacts, or the role human activity plays disappear.

Objective knowledge on climate change is needed to inform good policy decisions. Although its effects are not uniform around the world, climate change does and will continue to impact each and every one of us in some way. Meanwhile, scientific research and discovery will help us understand the role human activity has and continues to play in the change; the risks we face as a result; and options for managing those risks.

Looking past the possibility of any legally-binding global emission target (and U.S. involvement in any treaty), the international climate negotiations opening today in Durban, South Africa are missing the point – the only way the world is going to drastically reduce carbon emissions is through innovation.

Yet, Durban is set to be weighed down by discussions of caps, targets, and subsidies even though their impact will be severely limited. It’s time for an international policy reset. Let’s stop pretending we can solve climate change with unenforceable pledges to use fossil fuels a little less or subsidize our way to a global clean energy future and prioritize strengthening the global clean energy innovation ecosystem.

How do we do this? First, we need to be honest about the limitations of what’s being discussed at Durban.

1. Carbon reduction targets and caps – such as an extension of the Kyoto Protocol - do apply pressure on governments to take policy action, but by itself is insufficient to radically reduce carbon emissions. Caps rely almost exclusively on prices to induce change (caps raise the price of carbon emissions). And it’s clear that price hikes induce some behavior change (e.g., driving smaller cars, insulating buildings, etc.), but they don’t magically lead to the creation of new generations of affordable non-fossil alternatives. Much more policy action is needed.

2. Subsidizing existing clean energy – a possible carve-out of the proposed Green Climate Fund – would simply subsidize high cost technologies. But these technologies won’t get us the emission cuts needed. Next-generation technologies in energy storage, biofuels, nuclear, CCS, solar, and so on are drastically needed. Like ARPA-E Director Arun Majumdar states – we need to innovate and create new clean energy technologies to solve our climate and energy challenges. The Green Climate Fund is set to ignore this reality and double-down on existing technologies that rich countries can only afford through subsidies and poor countries will only want with significant and long-term unsustainable support.

Second, the international climate negotiations must drastically rethink its policy approaches and make innovation – thus developing these next-generation technologies - central to its goals.

With this in mind, I propose a new approach. Let’s start an international reset by creating government clean energy RD&D (research, development, and demonstration) investment intensity targets that countries can sign up for in lieu of agreeing to cap carbon emissions.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), we need to globally investment $40 - $90 billion per year to stimulate the development of affordable clean technologies. Using IEA and Belfer Center data, global clean energy RD&D investments optimistically total over $16 billion in 2008, the last year of relatively good data. Thus the world is underfunding the foundation of clean energy innovation by $25 to $75 billion per year. Assuming, as IEA does, that governments must pick up the tab of at least half of that amount, the world’s leaders must boost RD&D investments by up to $38 billion.

To fill this gap, countries should be offered a choice: they can agree to carbon target reductions, or instead they can agree to meet gradually increasing government clean energy RD&D intensity targets. A clean energy RD&D intensity target of 0.065%, for example, would boost global investments by $19 billion (to $35.5 billion globally, assuming 2008 data). Countries like India, Finland and Hungry would already meet this goal while the U.S. would have to increase investments by almost $6 billion compared to 2008 funding levels. Of course, higher targets can be set depending on how much further clean technologies must develop to become affordable and globally viable.

The benefits of this alternative approach are clear. From a climate perspective, significantly boosting global investment in clean energy innovation would be a huge victory in providing viable clean substitutes to dirty energy that directly reduces emissions. And if there are ever international carbon targets, increased RD&D investments would make hitting, thus negotiating, those targets easier for all countries. Ultimately the only way to meet global carbon emission targets is for economic actors to want to reduce emissions voluntarily because cleaner technology makes it economically advantageous to do so.

But a significant selling point would be how more investment boosts a country’s international competitiveness. Unlike carbon caps (or taxes) which hurt a nation’s global economic competitiveness (since it raises the prices of its exports), clean energy innovation can help a nation’s competiveness. It would be up to each country to decide which technology categories to invest in as well as what stage of innovation (i.e. basic battery science vs. applied solar research vs. CCS demonstration) it wants. So, these investments could leverage existing competitive advantages (such as U.S. universities or Brazilian agriculture) or spur countries to develop new ones. This would also to boost exports as technologies develop further.

Ultimately, resetting international climate negotiations to include innovation would be a win-win for individual economies and, of course, preserving the global climate. Let's get countries as committed to the clean energy innovation race in Durban as they are to making earnest but ultimately futile pledges to cut emissions through emission targets.

The meeting is Durban will likely follow the script of all past meetings. Self important government bureaucrats and special interest rent-seekers will spend the better part of rushing from meeting to meeting and wringing their hands over the lack of action and consensus. At the 12^th hour of the last day, ministers and lead negotiators will cobble together some sort of agreement that claims progress but which in fact just papers over the lack of substance.

The best thing to come out of Durban will be letting the Kyoto Protocol die an ignoble death. It didn’t make economic, environmental, or technological sense in 1997 and it makes no sense today. Unfortunately, delegates have too much invested in climate orthodoxy to let the COP and IPCC processes end. Careers, research grants, and fund raising are at stake in keeping the illusion of a climate catastrophe alive.

Over the past several years, the weak scientific basis for an impending catastrophe has become even weaker. Advances in knowledge about ocean currents, solar influence, clouds, and water vapor in the atmosphere have highlighted how much we don’t know about the climate system and further demonstrated that the computer models used to project catastrophe decades in the future bear little relationship to reality. And now another email dump shows how desperate a small cabal of insiders is to defend climate orthodoxy.

Without a strong scientific foundation, there is little justification for the climate policies that promote alternative energy subsidies and fossil energy rationing.

In Durban, developing nations—which are now termed “vulnerable nations”—will lobby hard for developed nations to commit $100 billion annually to help them adapt. It isn’t going to happen and the fact that the effort is being made shows how detached from reality the COP process is.

The EU is on the brink of economic collapse and the US is struggling to recover from the great recession. National debts and deficit spending in the developed world have created a global crisis. The prevailing economic circumstances are leading to a retreat from bad environmental policies. That is a good thing but it comes at a very high cost.

The problem of vulnerability and adaptive capacity is important and needs to be addressed. But, the solution is not more aid to countries that are unwilling or incapable of helping themselves. Most of these nations are ruled by elites who enrich themselves at the expense of their citizens. They do not have the rule of law, democratic processes, or property rights that are necessary for them to get out of the depths of poverty. There is no excuse to ignore the almost 2 billion people who live in abject poverty, suffer high disease and mortality rates, and lack access to commercial energy. That is the globes most serious environmental problem. Ignoring it while promoting the illusion of a climate apocalypse in coming decades—which are always in the distant future—is immoral.

As the climate negotiations open in Durban, we find a peculiar paradox. While expectations for the talks remain quite low, the urgency is very high.

This dynamic is even more pronounced in the United States, where climate change continues to be largely ignored in political circles; except, that is, when the science is under attack. Meanwhile study after study show that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise as the climate crisis worsens.

Therefore, it is important to consider why we need to take advantage of opportunities like Durban.

First off, a rash of recent reports provide strong and consistent support that emissions are rising:

· The World Meteorological Organization announced[M1] last week that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2010, with carbon dioxide, in particular, exceeding 389 parts per million.

· In early November, the U.S. Department of Energy reported [M2] that global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture jumped by 6 percent between 2009 and 2010, a record increase[M3] .

· A new UN Environment Programme report found[M4] a growing gap between global GHG emissions and what the science says is needed to stay within 2 degrees Celsius of warming. The gap is now projected to be between 6 to 11 gigatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (up from the range of 5 to 9 gigatonnes that was projected last year).

· The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2011 found [M5] that energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by 5.3 percent in 2010, rising to a record 30.4 gigatonnes. Furthermore, IEA warned that the existing energy-related infrastructure leaves hardly any room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure, if we are to have a fighting chance to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, unless stringent new action is forthcoming by 2017.

On top of these findings, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just released [M6] the most comprehensive scientific analysis undertaken about the connection between extreme weather and climate change – finding strong links between the two. We are already getting a taste of what a more extreme world will look like, with vivid examples such as the drought and raging wildfires in the southwestern United States and the epic flooding that submerged much of Thailand.

While these developments have not led to the kind of public outrage that we’ve seen recently around other issues, like the financial crisis, this does not lessen the need for a robust response.

The Three Pillars

To be sure, there are key areas that need to be addressed to advance the negotiations in Durban. Progress is mostly wrapped around three pillars[M7] :

1) Rulemaking around the Cancun Agreements. Last year, countries came together[M8] around a set of issues, including emissions pledges, accounting rules, transparency provisions, scientific review, adaptation, technology, and forests. The next step is to make these issues operational both in terms of how the mechanisms will work and how the institutions are set up.

2) Second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. This is, therefore, a key moment for the world’s only international legally- binding climate agreement. The question remains whether the Parties under Kyoto will agree to enter their 2020 emission pledges into a second commitment period, or if another solution is possible.

3) A mandate, or roadmap, to create a legally-binding climate agreement in the near future (e.g., by 2015). For many countries, a legally binding agreement is preferable as it carries greater levels of accountability and transparency around climate action. While the full details of such an agreement are not expected to be worked out in Durban, it is important for negotiators to set a clear course for moving forward. (See my colleague Jacob Werksman’s blog on legal form here[M9] )

Signs of Life (or Signs of Movement)

While few are expecting a major breakthrough in Durban, there have been signs of movement.

Most notable is the recent proposal [M10] by the European Union to go forward with a 2^nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, if all Parties are willing to develop and enter into a “future global and comprehensive legally-binding framework.” This proposal is being given serious consideration and opens the door for others to engage.

In addition, several countries, including China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have pushed ahead with domestic action to set targets and control their emissions. Each of these can play a leadership role in the talks.

Then, of course, there’s the United States, which remains an important player, if somewhat less prominent than in previous years. While U.S. political dynamics are not favorable for federal action on climate change right now, the United States isn’t the only country that faces tricky politics and financial constraints. Even in this atmosphere, the United States can play a constructive role and have a positive influence on countries that are looking to engage.

Conclusion

While the spotlight may be less intense than in recent years, the Durban meeting represents an important opportunity to work through the details and develop concrete plans for the road ahead.

Such progress can help resolve the climate paradox – bringing the UN negotiations closer in line with the action that is needed, while also helping restore confidence in the system.

Given the challenges at hand, we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip by.

[M1]http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_934_en.html

[M2]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

[M3]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/whatsnew.html

[M4]http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2659&ArticleID=8955&l=en&t=long

[M5]http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf

[M6]http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/PRESS_NOTE_IPCC__summary_report_release_18_Nov_2011.pdf

[M7]

Link: http://insights.wri.org/news/2011/11/what-aim-and-expect-unfccc-climate-talks-durban

[M8]LINK: http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/12/reflections-cancun-agreements

[M9] http://insights.wri.org/news/2011/11/challenge-legal-form-durban-climate-talks

[M10]

Link: http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_11566_en.htm

With the science anything but settled and the proposed solutions incredibly harmful to world economies, the world will be far better off if no new climate treaty comes out of Durban.

The good news is that the prospects for a new commitment period in the model of the Kyoto Protocol seem slim. The differences between the developed and developing world's negotiating positions are too great. Couple this with a U.S. Senate that will not ratify a new treaty (our allies have made clear that they do not want to go it alone again) and a full out, binding treaty, would surprise everyone.

However, there is much at stake in Durban for carbon profiteers who bet their financial futures on an endless flow of global warming cash. Kyoto's carbon markets are set to expire in 2012 which could send would-be carbon traders out in search of gainful employment. Alternative energy corporations also face lean times ahead if the developed world's appetite for subsidies and guarantees continues to dry up (a drought which will only accelerate in the absence of a treaty). The public is catching on to plants that are more designed to generate subsidies than power. At some point (if we want the lights to stay on) energy generation has to be about the power, not the freebies. Let's certainly not forget the researchers, climate campaigners and third world bureaucrats all whom have developed an unhealthy sense of entitlement to the productive world's tax dollars.

With billions and hoped for trillions at stake, Durban remains of crucial importance whether a full treaty emerges or not. The climate powers that be may wish for a treaty, but aim to keep their cash flowing by any means necessary. They retooled after the UN's massive failure at Copenhagen and now use simpler tactics such as smaller more specific agreements (a neat way to bypass the U.S. Senate) to accomplish their ends. Recent conferences created new ways to cash in. The REDD program has western speculators buying up land in developing nations in the name of forestry, but in fact to cash in on huge subsidy payments. This is a shameful example of eco-imperialism (as CFACT adviser Paul Driessen would put it). The “Green Climate Fund” is the darling of the developing world. UNFCCC Secretary Christiana Figueres and others recently expressed their hope to expand it from $100 to $400 billion. At a recent conference in Bonn one developing world delegate (upon learning that CFACT's staffer was an American) wanted only to know, “when are you going to send us our money?”

This week saw the disclosure of a huge new batch of emails in what is being called “Climategate 2.0.” These emails provide a shockingly candid look at the machinations of the high priests of global warming. No open minded reader can review those emails and fail to see an insular cadre of climate scientists coordinating efforts to place advocacy ahead of science, stifle dissent and conceal any information which detracts from a preconceived, ideologically driven, global warming narrative (full details at ClimateDepot.com).

It is clear that climate science is not settled. Couple that with policies proposed to address global warming that are ineffective, economically devastating and already open to the worst kind of looting of the public purse. The only conclusion is that the UNFCCC should call an immediate halt to climate propagandizing, throw the profiteers out of the tent, stop, reassess and come back with sober, disciplined proposals, or none at all.

There are good COPs and bad COPs, and Durban will probably land somewhere in between. It won’t produce major policy outcomes like Rio, Kyoto or Copenhagen. It won’t risk total collapse like The Hague. But it could produce a valuable legacy: the start of operations for three new UN climate institutions, and the rise of a new set of leaders in climate policy from the developing world.

First, it’s important to understand that the Durban agenda is relatively modest. The big ticket item is how to address the interim period between the Kyoto compliance period (ending in 2012) and the start of a new treaty (beginning date TBD). This agenda item will attract the spotlight – but it may not get answered, given that key negotiating blocks are not ready to move. Instead, Parties may try to advance a new negotiating mandate for completing work on a new treaty by a date certain.

Beyond the treaty discussion, the Durban Agenda could produce important decisions on institutions – like operationalizing the Adaptation Committee, the Technology Committee and its Centers around the world, and the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The agenda also includes focus on new market mechanisms, which could mobilize large amounts of private investment. Private sector firms are interested in whether—and how— the GCF will interrelate with these new markets.

Beyond the substantive agenda, Durban’s greater legacy may be the emergence of new diplomatic leaders on climate change.

With a divided Congress in Washington, the U.S. delegation will not lead the push for a post-Kyoto treaty. Japan, Russia and the EU are reluctant to lead without US involvement. They want to understand the level and structure of U.S. commitments before they confirm their own plans.

Europe, in particular, is in a quandary this year. It faces very difficult economic conditions at home, but it also has a public that strongly supports climate action. Diplomatically, Europe has won many friends in the developing world by creating a market for carbon offsets issued by the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Developing countries want Europe to agree to a second Kyoto compliance period, in part to keep the CDM in operation. While Europe does not want to disappoint its developing country allies, it also believes another Kyoto period without the US, Japan and Russia would accomplish little for the global climate.

Europe has committed to purchasing CDM credits only from least developed countries after 2012 – and for larger developing countries, it plans to accept credits from broader sectoral crediting systems. Interestingly, this potential for new market access to the EU – combined with national imperatives – appears to be motivating an interesting set of new leaders to emerge: The four largest developing countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China (the “BASIC” group)— now coordinate their positions. Given South Africa’s Presidency of the COP, this group could become a positive force in Durban and beyond.

The BASIC group is stepping up to lead in some interesting ways. Each is working to elaborate “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” (or “NAMAs”) as its contribution to the global effort. For example, China intends to adopt a national emissions trading program by 2015. India is launching a market in energy efficiency credits. Even in advance of a new international treaty, these national systems could create tradable credits that could be recognized in the EU, Japan and Australia – possibly even in California. Under grants from the World Bank, a number of major developing countries are conducting feasibility studies on sectoral crediting programs.

In looking at the activities surrounding the Durban talks, I’m reminded of the period between COP 1 and the Kyoto negotiations. As the big ticket items of targets, timetables and market mechanisms developed slowly in negotiations over several years, there was a great deal of practical experience gained in national programs – particularly the joint implementation pilot programs. Lots of learning took place – and concrete examples emerged that informed negotiators and made the breakthroughs on the Clean Development Mechanism possible. Perhaps national pilots of sectoral trading systems will inform future climate negotiations in the same way.

From the vantage point of Washington insiders, it’s often difficult to appreciate that the international climate negotiations follow their own drumbeat. Despite the rants of the right in Washington, the scientific community continues to produce compelling evidence that there are serious risks of dangerous climate change unless global action is taken. The Durban Conference comes at the end of a very difficult year. It saw a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan, massive political change in the Middle East and major economic turmoil in Europe and the United States. Against this backdrop, it is a testament to the strength of the UN process that international negotiators continue to move the climate agenda forward – even if the progress in Durban turns out to be modest.