A goal – or not

by | Jun 26, 2007


Chris Dodwell, a senior climate change official at the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supports a long-term stabilisation goal. A goal is important for three reasons, he argues.

First, it gives business a long term signal. Second, it provides a guide for countries on how to cope with the change in climate that we’re all going to have to learn to live with. Finally, it tells consumers that all governments are in it together – everyone is doing their bit.

Jennifer Morgan, from E3G, disagrees. A long-term goal will not be easy to negotiate. It also focuses attention on burden sharing – how will available emissions be divided up?

Author

  • David Steven is a senior fellow at the UN Foundation and at New York University, where he founded the Global Partnership to End Violence against Children and the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, a multi-stakeholder partnership to deliver the SDG targets for preventing all forms of violence, strengthening governance, and promoting justice and inclusion. He was lead author for the ministerial Task Force on Justice for All and senior external adviser for the UN-World Bank flagship study on prevention, Pathways for Peace. He is a former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of The Risk Pivot: Great Powers, International Security, and the Energy Revolution (Brookings Institution Press, 2014). In 2001, he helped develop and launch the UK’s network of climate diplomats. David lives in and works from Pisa, Italy.

    View all posts

More from Global Dashboard

Let’s make climate a culture war!

Let’s make climate a culture war!

If the politics of climate change end up polarised, is that so bad?  No – it’s disastrous. Or so I’ve long thought. Look at the US – where climate is even more polarised than abortion. Result: decades of flip flopping. Ambition under Clinton; reversal...