Opinion Clearing the air at Cancun
It makes sense to focus first on tangible actions that wont take major persuasion
As the curtain rises in Cancún,Mexico,on the next round of international talks on climate change,expectations are low that the delegates will agree on a new treaty to reduce emissions. They were unable to do so last year in Copenhagen,and since then the negotiating positions of the biggest countries have grown even further apart.
Yet it is still possible to make significant progress. To give these talks their best chance,the delegates in Cancún should move beyond their focus on long-term efforts to stop warming and take a few immediate,practical actions that could have a tangible effect.
The opportunity to make progress arises from the fact that global warming is caused by two separate types of pollution. One is the long-term buildup of carbon dioxide,which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries. Diplomacy has understandably focused on this problem because,without deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions,there can be no permanent solution to warming.
The carbon dioxide problem is hard to fix,however,because it comes mainly from the burning of fossil fuels,so essential to modern life and commerce. It will take decades and trillions of dollars to convert all the worlds fossil-fuel-based energy systems to cleaner systems like nuclear,solar and wind power. In the meantime,a fast-action plan is needed.
But carbon dioxide is not the only kind of pollution that contributes to global warming. Other potent warming agents include three short-lived gases methane,some hydrofluorocarbons and lower atmospheric ozone- and dark soot particles. The warming effect of these pollutants,which stay in the atmosphere for several days to about a decade,is already about 80 per cent of the amount that carbon dioxide causes. The world could easily reduce these pollutants; the technology and regulatory systems needed to do so are already in place.Big cuts are also possible in hydrofluorocarbons,or HFCs,many of which are used as refrigerants in air-conditioners and other cooling systems.
From a political point of view,the most appealing greenhouse emissions to reduce are ozone and soot,because they contribute so much to local air pollution. After all,people everywhere care about the quality of the air they breathe,even if most of them are not yet very worried about global warming. A desire to clean up the air is a rare point of commonality between developing and industrialised nations.
Pollution restrictions that reduce ozone levels,especially in the rapidly growing polluted cities of Asia,could both clear the air and slow warming. Soot likewise offers an opportunity to marry local interests with the global good. New air pollution regulations could help reduce soot. In China and India,a programme to improve power generation,filter soot from diesel engines,reduce emissions from brick-making kilns and provide more efficient cookstoves could cut the levels of soot in those regions by about two-thirds and benefit countries downwind as well.
Reducing soot and the other short-lived pollutants would not stop global warming,but it would buy time,perhaps a few decades,for the world to put in place more costly efforts to regulate carbon dioxide. And it would help the major economies demonstrate credibility on climate change,which has been in short supply in the diplomatic talks so far.
The impasse that was evident in Copenhagen last year arises in part from the inability of China,India,Europe and the United States to show that they are adopting practical measures to slow climate change. Agreeing on a shared strategy to curtail short-lived pollutants would be a good way for all of them to start. For too long,overly ambitious global climate talks have focused on the aspects of global warming that are hardest to solve. A few more modest steps,with quick and measurable effects,are a better way to proceed.
Share
