Copenhagen, 2009: A Call for Common Climate Metrics

Much is at stake at the Copenhagen Climate Summit of December 2009. As countries continue their banter on how much responsibility and how many commitments they should take to reduce global warming, the phenomenon continues to claim over 300,000 lives a year. Some have dismissed the negotiations as a lame duck effort before they have even begun; but the climate talks received a boost when the governments of U.S. and China announced that their heads of state would be representing their countries in Copenhagen, and that they would bring reduction commitments to the table. While these developments are positive, firm progress has evaded Copenhagen so far because countries continue to speak of actions to mitigate climate change using different standards and measures. The negotiators should use this forum in December to standardize the climate metrics in easily measurable and comparable terms. Once this is done, the world can gauge how close different countries have reached to the necessary goal.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the consensus of the international scientific climate change community, found that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced to 25%-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, in order to avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change. This translates to a reduction requirement of about 13-16 billion metric tons by 2020. If all countries measure their emissions reductions in terms of metric tons, it will be possible to compare goals of different countries, and the world can make sure that the combined global emissions do not exceed 13-16 billion metric tons by 2020. Until this level has been reached, negotiations must continue.

At this stage, countries are speaking in vastly varying terms, which makes it hard to determine how significant the various commitments are. The European Union has indicated willingness to reduce emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. The U.S. has said it will propose emissions reductions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Because the E.U. and the U.S. are using different base years against which to measure emissions reductions, it is difficult to compare their relative commitments, and to check whether they contribute sufficiently to reducing emissions to 13-16 billion metric tons by 2020.

Calculating reductions in carbon intensity could also be used to express climate change mitigation action. China has done so in lieu of offering emissions reduction targets, and other developing countries may follow suit. China has said it will reduce its carbon intensity to 40 -45% below 2005 levels by 2020, but much ambiguity and debate surrounds this method of measurement. Carbon intensity measures the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy consumed. Reductions in it will not necessarily result in emissions declining. What matters to reduce global warming is that the total amount of emissions reduces, not the efficiency with which carbon is used. Carbon intensity could fall with more efficient use of carbon, but the total amount of carbon emissions released could increase at the same time. This is the danger of using alternative measures for reductions in climate change- they could be misleading and counterproductive. This is why the process needs to be standardized now.

Certain countries have already begun talking in terms of easily quantifiable and comparable metric tons. Mexico announced a plan to cut annual emissions by 50 million tons by 2012. This is the language we all need to speak in so that we can compare countries’ goals, and so that we can determine whether or not the global emissions reductions add up to the amount the science says we need. Until this number is reached, negotiations must go on; but the process can and should start in Copenhagen.