Climate change and what to do about it are on everyone’s mind- from citizens to the media to the politicians. In December, world leaders will meet to map out a global response and action plan. There are summits and preparations going on all over the world right now and they will continue up until that summit happens in Copenhagen. And there is little to show for it at this point.

Last year (2008) global CO2 emissions rose 1,94% says the German renewable energy industry institute IWR. Kyoto did not work and is not working- at least not in the short term. That will be a valuable lesson for everyone to look at and consider in December. The United States has to be involved this time around- we have to sign on, do it, make it a priority and do things differently. It’s pretty easy to say, but will be an absolute polar bear to implement. Are you ready?

The good news on that front is that the United States is teaming up with other North American countries Canada and Mexico. This week the three nations announced that they will create infrastructure to work together on greenhouse gas emissions trading. Wait- does that just mean that we have kind of a NATO-style carbon credit stock market where U.S. companies can trade with Mexico and Canada to offset their emissions? Are we just going to keep doing what we are doing and plant some trees in northern Canada? That would not at all be progress or a step forward.

If a tree is planted in a forest and no one is there to see it grow, does it actually get taller? Point being, if we do not start making noticeable, meaningful changes very soon and in very visible and tangible ways, people are going to think we can plan and policy this climate change thing away like we are trying to do with the recession and other economic crises. The problem is that you can’t give money to the atmosphere. You can short sell or refinance the environment. You can’t create new accounting systems for the CO2 levels and water supply. We have what we have and it is dirty and decaying.

The countries also said that they would work toward curbing emissions "by striving to achieve carbon-neutral growth in the North American aviation sector in the context of global action." Um, ok.
For their part, the German IWR said:

"(Our recommendation) is a better approach than trying to persuade countries to curb their industrial activities, which inevitably creates hostility and bickering over who should be doing what to protect the climate."

They went on to say that linking the current CO2 emissions to pledged cuts for the future: basically, if you are a high emitter you have to pledge to make big cuts. If you don’t make much in the way of emissions, you don’t have much to cut.

You have to admit, if you aren’t one of the high producers, this sounds like a good plan. The only thing it doesn’t sound like a good plan for is economic growth.