The way to climate change success

Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive and one of Britain's most prominent business leaders, sets out five requirements for world leaders to agree on at next month's Copenhagen summit.

By Lord BrownePublished: 8:30PM GMT 14 Nov 2009
Global political leadership will be tested to its limit at next month's climate change conference in Copenhagen. Key players must negotiate and agree a new climate accord before the end of the conference or else face some very searching questions about their commitment to the future integrity of our environment.
What is unclear at this stage is whether our political leaders are, in fact, ready to lead.
Over two decades of well-intentioned policymaking has failed to make a positive impact on reducing emissions of harmful greenhouse gases. Verified carbon dioxide emissions from energy use have increased in every year since the Kyoto treaty was signed. Any predicted fall in 2009 will be as a result of the global recession. The trend is not sustainable, so governments need to seize the moment this summit offers.
As I talk to political and business leaders around the world, I sense Copenhagen will not be the total failure some cynics are suggesting. Yet nor do I have a real sense of the necessary political resolve to deliver a deal that will drive a sustainable change in behaviour.
We cannot afford another Kyoto conference where fine words are exchanged but behaviour continues as normal.
At Copenhagen it is vital that leaders keep in mind a core set of minimum requirements that, if agreed to, would represent a political breakthrough and step-change in tackling climate change.
First, adopt a flexible position on how emissions are reduced.
For starters, we should begin by talking more in terms of a Copenhagen Round than of a set-piece Copenhagen conference.
The task of leading that round falls to the developed nations. These countries are both wealthy and responsible for the majority of emissions in the atmosphere. It is time we faced up to our responsibilities. Of course, key polluting countries such as China and India must be pressed to take action to reduce emissions, but they are unlikely to do so unless leaders in the US, Europe and Japan can be sufficiently flexible in their demands.
The developed economies could also show more flexibility on the issue of technology transfer to the developing world. Maintaining national competitiveness is of course very important, but so too is maximising the opportunities associated with the transition towards a global low-carbon economy. "First mover" advantage can be very real for businesses – and indeed countries – prepared to take leadership positions.
Second, set a series of medium-term targets.
No company chief executive draws up a business plan to last until 2050; the approach to addressing climate change should be similar. We cannot realistically predict the impact of multiple variables over a long period of time. There may be technological breakthroughs which fundamentally change our perception of what is possible. Or we may fail to develop new technologies as quickly as hoped. The international community must guard against locking these uncertainties into a policy framework.
To drive change the summit needs to set a medium-term emissions target for no later than 2020, with some realistic yet stretching interim goals. This will allow two things: incorporate advances made possible by technological and economic change; and lock in a greater sense of accountability which focuses the minds of politicians on delivery.
Third, agree national targets and strengthen global offset mechanisms.
The global emissions target must be broken down into a series of national targets if it is to be enforceable. Every country must agree either to reduce emissions in total or against a business-as-usual projection, in line with the Kyoto principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". Governments would then be free to trade their initial allocation of emission credits as long as they meet their targets by the end of the commitment period.
The ability to "offset" emissions by funding projects in other countries will also be very important in meeting global targets in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Clean Development Mechanism established at Kyoto for this purpose has proved to be inadequate and difficult to scale up. Its focus must now be upgraded from individual projects to economy-wide targets for industrial sectors, plus additional provisions to reduce deforestation and encourage good land management.
Fourth, focus on building global capacity.
Delivery involves a lot more than articulating a vision and setting targets. It requires the capacity to identify opportunities and the capability to implement plans. While largely not a problem in the developed world, these elements are sorely lacking in developing countries. That is extremely important given that most of the low-cost opportunities to reduce emissions are located in the developing world – where as much as two thirds of the global potential to reduce emissions could be achieved with half the capital expenditure.
Improving governance in these countries will be the first step to realising this potential, not least from energy efficiency. There is little point in world leaders setting targets if some countries lack the infrastructure and the expertise to properly monitor emissions. Copenhagen should identify measures and allocate funds to build capacity, which, as a result of its unique position and experience, should be administered by the World Bank.
Fifth, and finally, invest in long-term research.
We must continue to invest in longer-term research and development, focusing in particular on energy use and alternative energy sources. At present many of these technologies cannot compete with fossil fuels as they suffer from high costs and technical issues. Resources must be carefully targeted towards applied research programmes to ensure that the high-cost energy sources of today can soon become the low-cost options of the future.
For many high-cost and high-priority technologies – such as carbon capture and storage systems for power plants – not enough is happening to stimulate research at the scale and pace required. Where research activity is not forthcoming from the bottom up, governments must be prepared to step in to ensure that it is driven from the top down, funding research programmes and demonstration projects. This needs to be agreed at Copenhagen and include joint investment research budgets and a mechanism to transfer the fruits of this research over time.
...
Taken together, these five policy areas, if included in any agreement, will make a positive impact. Not only do they make sense from a technical perspective, but they also combine key drivers to motivate political leaders who will not necessarily act out of benevolence but out of national, party or personal self-interest.
A Copenhagen treaty combining these elements – whether it emerges in December or following further talks in the "round" – must provide at the very least the architecture for future international co-operation on reducing emissions, such as trust, transparency and accountability. But we will not get there without strong political leadership.
We saw with Kyoto that a climate change settlement must be endorsed by political leaders from all major economies if it is to have a chance of success. Key leaders from major economies must lead from the front and attend the conference next month.
Whilst it is probably wrong to expect a revolutionary outcome from politicians, some of whom have built their careers on being risk-averse, we must hope that the plan they agree on reflects the sense of urgency and scale of the challenge. It is real political leadership that is required at Copenhagen – where careers will be defined by the decisions that are taken, but where ultimately much more than personal reputation is at stake.
Lord Browne of Madingley is managing director and managing partner (Europe) of Riverstone Holdings LLC and president of the Royal Academy of Engineering