There was a paradox at the heart of this week’s conference on climate change.
When describing the scale of the problem, speakers gave very strong messages. Temperature changes need to be kept below 2 degrees. This means keeping greenhouse gases below 450ppm (CO2 equivalent) – and even this might be too high. Emissions need to peak in the next few years and fall dramatically by 2050.
But when the time came to talk about how to respond to this challenge, speakers were much more cautious. No-one knows what kind of deal will prove politically possible.
Even governments who favour radical action seem reluctant to go on the record about what needs to be done. There is a marked contrast between their anodyne public messages and what they’re prepared to say behind closed doors.
This has to be wrong.
The Stern Review showed the advantages of doing your thinking out in the open. Instead of commissioning an internal review, the British government used a high profile piece of research to help change the terms of the global debate.
Surely, the same approach should be taken as governments sidle towards negotiating a post-Kyoto climate agreement.
This is not going to be a simple zero-sum negotiation – or if it is, it will surely fail. All possible solutions have to be got out on the table as quickly as possible. Governments will never reach agreement if everyone’s default position is to keep their cards clamped to their chest.
The conference also demonstrated how little we know about the politics of climate change. Oodles of cash has been spent on scientific research. We’ve spent quite a bit on understanding economic impacts.
But what we’re faced with is a issue that boils down to a web of interlocking decisions made by everyone from presidents to ordinary voters and consumers.
At present, we know very little about these decisions. We notice opinion shifting, but can’t do more than vaguely guess about tipping points. We haven’t even started to map which groups will be most influential as the debate unfolds over the next few years.
Again, a paradox. On the one hand, we’re told the stakes are incredibly high. On the other, as we look for solutions, we seem quite happy flying blind.
