THE CARBON WAR

The absurd thing is we know exactly what needs to be done 287
Signal” would tell energy incumbents that that the fossil-fuel era is over: that
they are now in an era of transition, of rapid managed retreat, whether they
like it or not. It would tell financial institutions that the hundreds of billions of
dollars invested annually in clean energy today will become trillions.
For the Paris Agreement to send such a signal, it would need to possess
a number of core components. It should set a low ceiling for global-warming,
within this century. For years now 2°C has been the goal commonly assumed
as a reasonable danger ceiling in policy discussions. But the low-lying island
nations have long said this is too high to save them, and of late some richer
governments – in the face of advice from their own scientists – have been
coming to the view that it might be too high for them too. A global-warming
ceiling of 1.5°C may be needed, they say. This is why G7 governments in their
June 2015 statement adopted a milestone on the road to decarbonisation of
“as much as 75% by 2050”.
Given the realpolitik of these negotiations, wherein every party must
decide it can live with all wording in the treaty adopted, I very much doubt
that 1.5°C will make it to the final text. But some form of words for the target
like “2°C or less, if necessary” would have to be part of a clear signal.
So too would the corollary: that fossil fuels have to be phased out, within
the century. This can appear in coded form, as “net decarbonisation” or some
such formulation that allows those who cling to carbon capture and storage
to keep their hopes alive. But decarbonisation must be there, at minimum, as
it is in the G7 statement.
Given that national emissions commitments made to date sum to global
warming of 2.7°C at best, according to the UN, there must be what negotiators
call a ratchet mechanism for tightening individual and collective targets. That
must entail a transparent mechanism for measuring and reporting progress
against existing targets, and a commitment to keep coming back to the table
to toughen the treaty regime until the world is on course to stay below the
agreed danger ceiling.
All this will be impossible without adequate provisions for finance, to
state the blindingly obvious. There are some obvious bottom lines for a clear
signal written in dollar signs. First, the rich nations must deliver on the Copenhagen
commitment to $100 billion a year for poor nations from 2020. That
sounds easy in principle, but there is a world of politics behind this issue, as
will undoubtedly become clear in the fortnight ahead. Second, there should
be enough treaty language to send a signal that whereas the world is currently