Global Warming Action Plan
Sam Carana
least four parts:
- Emissions reduction
- Carbon stock management
- Heat transfer and radiation management
- Adaptation
Each of these parts requires a separate and appropriate policy
framework - details should be worked out as soon as possible in an
international agreement, say, at the Copenhagen Climate Change
Conference end 2009.
To achieve the reduction in emissions that we need to have, emissions
need to be reduced for each country.
There should be separate policy frameworks for emission reduction and
for radiation management. This will avoid that a country can seek a
cheap way out, e.g. by causing some albedo change somewhere on Earth,
in efforts to "trade" itself out of its emission reduction
obligations.
Many types of radiation management require political agreement at
international level, which can require delicate diplomatic
negotiations. On the other hand, no international agreement will be
breached if a country decided to build more solar or wind farms, in
its efforts to reduce the emissions from its coal-fired power plants
that could then be decommissioned as a result.
Having separate policy frameworks allows countries to largely decide
individually how to achieve emission reductions, without requiring the
international approval that would be necessary in many cases of
radiation management.
Countries can each decide how to achieve their emissions reduction
targets, provided they each do indeed reach their target. This should
be backed up by the threat of sanctions against countries that fail to
reach their reduction targets. A check on a, say, annual basis, should
verify whether each country did reach its target.
Similarly, carbon stock management deserves a separate policy
framework, which should include the oceans and preservation of
rainforests and associated biodiversity.
Finally, adaptation to climate change also requires a separate policy
framework, as one country's actions may damage another country. Issues
like fresh water supply, refugees and preservation of biodiversity
need to be worked out at international level.
In conclusion, there should be separate policy frameworks for each of
these parts. This will ensure that each country will makes sufficient
effort to reach the targets in each of these parts. What should be
done, though, when a country fails to reach its carbon emission
reduction targets and proposes to make up for that shortfall by means
of carbon capture and storage (CCS)? In that case, the amount of CCS
should be punitive. The offset ratio should be punitive, to avoid that
countries will start using CCS as a routine way to escape their
obligations to reduce their emissions.
This paradox is worked out in proposals such as "cap and capture",
that acknowledge that we need to aim to do both, i.e. reduce emissions
in addition to capture carbon. Carbon capture can be used to offset
emissions, though, but in that case the offset ratio should be
punitive, to avoid that countries will stop making an effort to reduce
emissions.
As an example, a country could be allowed to offset a shortfall in its
emission reduction target, if it demonstrated successful capture and
safe storage of, say, twice the amount of the shortfall. Failing to do
so, the country would face sanctions, as arbitrated by the WTO, and
tariffs could be imposed up to the cost of such CCS (by international
tender) with the proceeds of such tariffs used to ensure that such CCS
does indeed take place.