National Climate Plans Suggest a Long, Hot Slog Ahead

The dust from Copenhagen has finally settled. Unfortunately, the road ahead still runs straight into the furnace.

Under the Copenhagen Accord - the pale shadow of the fair, binding, and ambitious treaty the planet needs - the world's countries had until January 31st to submit their national plans for cutting emissions. The vast majority (read: 130) blew the deadline completely. Fortunately, the bulk of the major polluters, whose emissions make up 80 percent of the world's total, didn't:

- The United States, sticking to President Obama's previously stated goal, pledged 17 percent reductions below 2005 levels by 2020 (4 percent below 1990 levels). And even this totally inadequate target assumes that the climate bill actually clears the Senate. More details here.
- The E.U., which had promised to cut emissions by 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 if other countries stepped up, stuck with its insufficent 20 percent target.
- Canada, channeling America's lack of ambition, also picked 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (which is actually a 2.5 percent increase over the country's 1990 levels). These pitiful targets are weaker than those Canada adopted two years ago, likely because the country sees green in its environmentally catastrophic oil exploration in the tar sands.
- Japan went whole-hog, with 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Japan and Brazil, are the only country doing what experts say is necessary.
- China is still suicidally refusing a cap on emissions. Instead, it is committing to slicing its carbon "intensity" (or carbon to GDP ratio) to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. This sounds impressive, but given China's explosive growth, this would only slow the growth of its emissions. They wouldn't peak until around 2030, which is a decade too late.
- India is marching in lockstep with China against caps. And, as with China, its promise to curb carbon intensity by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 just doesn't cut it. This is unlikely to change until developed countries do the just and necessary thing: funnel mitigation funding to the developing world.
- Brazil is breaking with the India and China's intransigence with an ambitious target of 39 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. To reach it, they must halt deforestation in the Amazon, which will require massive first-world funding.
- Australia is hedging its bets: It pledged as little 3 percent and as much as 23 percent percent below 1990 levels, depending on what everyone else does.
- South Africa and Indonesia will probably throw their hats into the ring soon.

As you might have surmised by now, these promises don't add up to a livable climate: According to consulting firm Ecofys, even if the countries actually met their targets, the planet would still heat up by a toasty 3.5 degrees Celsius. This is well above the fuzzy "catastrophe threshold" of 2 degrees Celsius, the Accord's stated mitigation goal.

What does this mean for the prospects of climate action in 2010?

On the bright side, this is the first time major polluters have actually pledged to take concrete actions. Treaties don't cut emissions, optimists say; policies do. They have a point, especially since the most important thing now is to get the ball rolling. But the only way to secure ambitious-enough policies, the retort goes, is through a treaty. (I'll dissect this complex debate in a future post)

On the whole, though, the outlook is pretty grim. Taking the pulse of politicians, climate diplomats, and campaigners, the Guardian reports that a real deal in 2010 is looking "all but impossible."

These insiders point to a number of obstacles, institutional as well as political. International negotiations, in the grip of post-Copenhagen burnout, are in disarray. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that hosts the climate talks, is a flawed and unwieldy vehicle for continued negotiations. In fact, the Accord's national pledges could signal a shift away from a top-down, legally-binding approach to climate policy towards a bottom-up, voluntary one.

Then there are the major players to deal with. China, widely blamed for derailing the Copenhagen meeting, must be coaxed and pressured into doing far more. Europe must live up to the mantle of leadership it has claimed for itself by scaling up its ambitions and kick-starting mitigation funding to the developing world.

But by far the most critical, and most vexing, problem of all is the U.S. Senate. As you read this, a handful of Senators have the power to single-handedly put the nation on, or off, a low-carbon path. However, the combination of an absurdly undemocratic filibuster, completely obstructionist Republican party, and the lobbying heft of entrenched interests means if climate-energy bill is to pass at all it will of necessity be watered down to buy the votes of fossil-state Democrats.

The election of Republican Scott Brown will make the vote herding for the Kerry-Graham bill that much harder. Toss in the 11th-hour sucker punch of health care reform, the looming mid-term elections, the media's shameless distortion of recent climate science controversies, and the fact that the recession has buried the American public's concern for the climate and things start to look really dim.

And make no mistake: There is no solution to the climate crisis - whether through a global treaty or clean energy race - without U.S. action. The senators opposing the climate bill are, in effect, holding the world hostage.

This is the political - and moral - terrain facing the global climate movement as it enters this decisive year. As we collectively redraw our battle plan, we must focus on these lines of attack.

Photo credit: Takver